Incapacity Benefit

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to publish their new proposals on incapacity benefit.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we will publish a Green Paper in the new year setting out our proposals.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that reports that the Prime Minister is in favour of some cuts in incapacity benefit have caused deep concern among disabled people? The Government should be in no doubt whatever that cuts of any kind will be fiercely resisted in the Houses of Parliament, by disabled people and by the Disability Rights Commission. Is my noble friend further aware that I favour a reform of incapacity benefit? However, it should not be done by cuts, time limits, means tests or vouchers instead of money. Such a move would be absolute nonsense, and all the other suggestions now being put forward by various people via leaks to the papers are very damaging to the whole concept of reform. The best way to reform the benefit is to build on Pathways to Work. That is a splendid project, but it covers only one-third of the country. We now want a national roll-out as soon as possible. Once we have that, we will have constructive reform, which will help disabled people and employers.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think I get the message from my noble friend. We should be wary of speculation and wait for the Green Paper. I agree with my noble friend that many in the disability lobby applaud the work that has been done in the Pathways to Work pilots, where the emphasis has been on encouraging people on IB to go back to work, and of course that is what our Green Paper will be all about.

Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope: My Lords, the Minister is asking for patience in this important policy area. Does he recall that the right honourable Frank Field published a Green Paper called A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions on this important subject in March 1998? That has been a long time to wait. Is he also aware that in February this year the department published a five-year plan, which contained some important assurances that there would be no cuts in benefit rates, no time limits and no crackdown on benefit claimants? Is he aware that the continuing delay is encouraging people to believe that the Government are now thinking of resiling from some of those important assurances?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is important that we get the matter right. The Green Paper proposals will come forward as soon as possible. Clear indications have come from the Pathways to Work pilots of the ingredients needed for success. Those revolve very much around providing a one-stop service, financial, health and employment advice, and by encouraging people to return to work. So far, 19,500 people have gone back to work through the Pathways to Work pilots, and we will build our Green Paper reforms around that.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, as the Pathways to Work scheme depends on the quality and capacity of the people who are advising disabled people to go back to work, will the Minister say whether training is in hand to ensure that any roll-out of the project is truly a success?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much agree with that. I owe a great debt to the staff who have been involved in the Pathways to Work pilots so far. I refer not only to people in Jobcentre Plus but also to staff in the health service, and I am grateful for the advice that we receive from employers. It has been a tremendous team effort. As I told the House two or three weeks ago, it is a joy to meet people who have got back into work through this process. We know that the outcomes for people on IB are not very good. Indeed, once a person is on IB for more than two years, he or she is more likely to die or retire rather than get back into work. Seeing people who have gone through this new system and what it has meant to them is very heartening indeed.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we must be careful about how we deliberate on incapacity benefit? In my part of the world, south Wales, there are people who have worked in heavy industry, and have taken the strain of that, who are genuinely in need of help from any government. Let us not laugh and think that there are too many people on benefit and we must get them off, when a lot, if not most, of them deserve our Government's support.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course. Our welfare policies are designed to give help to those who need it. I certainly agree with my noble friend that there are many who have been assisted through the help they have received on IB. However, we should surely not give up on anyone. We know from the work done that between 80 and 90 per cent of people coming on to IB in the first place want to get back to work. It is surely our responsibility to do everything we can to help those people do that.

Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, who claims the authorship for this latest Green Paper? We must bear in mind that Frank Field was sacked for producing his.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as on everything, the Government speak with one voice.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that nearly 40 per cent of those now on IB are there because of mental health problems, such as depression and stress? Should we not therefore agree that the right way to approach this is to tackle issues around occupational health, so that those problems are managed properly in the workplace?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is, unsurprisingly, a telling point from my noble friend. The latest statistics show that 39 per cent of claimants for IB are because of mental/behavioural disorders, and 19 per cent are musculo-skeletal. I agree with my noble friend that a strategy that looks at health in the workplace, and encourages employers to do everything they can in work design and support for staff that are affected, can have a positive benefit. I invite the House to read the recent strategy on workplace health produced by my department, which I hope will encourage employers in that direction.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke referred to the Disability Rights Commission, which of course he did so much to create. How closely is the department consulting the DRC? Can the Minister assure us that it will be in close consultation with this important body for disabled people as things move forward?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley for their work in supporting the DRC. We frequently talk to the DRC. It has made constructive proposals for welfare reform in general. I assure my noble friend Lord Morris that we will want to talk very closely with the commission once the Green Paper is produced.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, when the Green Paper is produced, will it address the worry that Macmillan Cancer Relief has over the alarming evidence that terminally ill patients are being required to attend work-focused interviews?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course we shall take account of that. If the noble Baroness has details of specific instances of this happening, I shall be pleased to investigate.

Commonhold

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many commonholds have been registered under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002; and, of these, how many include social housing.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the commonhold legislation came into force on 27 September 2004. As of 18 November, six commonholds were registered at the Land Registry: five in England and one in Wales. The rate of take-up is extremely disappointing. We are investigating the reasons for the slow start and looking into ways that take-up might be boosted. As part of this exercise, we are considering whether it is necessary to hold a formal review. We will announce the result of our investigations early in the new year.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It is disappointing because it was anticipated that there would be many thousands of registrations by now. It is almost derisory if it is only five or six. Can the Minister confirm that commonhold was a Labour Party manifesto commitment and that the intention was to empower people to own and control their own homes on a permanent basis, rather than to have a lease which is a depreciating asset?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely correct. It was a Labour Party manifesto commitment, and it had the backing of the Opposition. In fact, it is a piece of legislation that has moved through several Parliaments. The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that it offers people, particularly flat owners, the possibility of permanent ownership of their properties. The Government are absolutely committed to commonhold. We shall investigate why progress is so slow and report back to the House early in the new year.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we were discussing the commonhold Bill there was a great deal of inquiry around the fact that the Government were insisting that there should be 100 per cent sign-up within a block before it could become a commonhold? Does he also recall that the strong recommendation from this side of the House was that it should not be more than 80 per cent? If the Government are going to consider a review—indeed, even if they are not—will they consider reviewing the 100 per cent requirement?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think we will reconsider every aspect of it. The noble Baroness is absolutely correct to say—and I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who suggested—that 80 per cent would be more sensible than 100 per cent. When the investigation takes place, we will look into all the reasons why this rather enlightened and central piece of legislation has not progressed as quickly as we hoped it would during the first year of its implementation.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it was inevitable under this system that developers of new properties would not bring properties forward under commonhold given that, by retaining the lease system, they keep for themselves ground rent, service charges and the option to sell the freehold later? Should that not have been foreseen from the outset?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am not sure I can agree that it should have been foreseen from the outset. However, the noble Baroness has raised a number of issues which will have to be looked at as we investigate whether we need to review this. I shall put in the Library the transcript of the "Moneybox" programme which, although the Government do not agree with some of the conclusions, discusses all the possible impediments to what is, for us and I think for the Opposition, an important piece of legislation.

Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend's Question asks how many of these commonholds include social housing. Surely all housing is social.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, that is not so in our definition of social housing. I should have said at the outset that the Land Registry does not hold information to indicate whether these developments contain social housing.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell me—if he does not know, perhaps he can let me know later—whether primary legislation will be required to change things? For example, if the department were able to encourage people building in the new Olympic village area to build some commonholds, that could be attached to the planning permission. Would that be a practical matter or would it require primary legislation? I am not sure. Sometimes these matters can be dealt with under secondary legislation; other times the entire matter has to be reopened.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the question of whether it will need primary legislation. As far as the government developments are concerned—the Olympic village and the Thames Gateway—I think that we should consider as part of the investigation using these huge developments in a way that would help the advancement of the commonhold idea.

Nuclear Energy

Lord Redesdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what basis they believe that nuclear energy is a renewable source of energy.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government recognise that nuclear power shares many of the same environmental benefits as renewable energy, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. The technical question of whether nuclear energy is or is not a renewable source of energy turns on how one defines "a renewable source of energy", and the view one takes on the supply of uranium, the use of other materials and the commercial prospects of nuclear fusion.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, having had discussions with other noble Lords, we believe that oil and even coal could be seen as renewable, because forests could be grown over a long period of time and crushed. However, nuclear power, moving from one elemental state to another, is perhaps not renewable—although the carbon use is important. Has a nuclear power station ever had a life cycle review of its use of carbon in construction, mining of the fuel, transport and decommissioning costs? If not, if it is to be declared renewable, why not?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question is not whether a nuclear power station is renewable, it is whether nuclear power is renewable given that it makes use of a resource that arguably has a finite life. I thought that that was the central thrust of the Question. That is why I gave the Answer that I did, which I hope makes clear that, in most circumstances on any basis, that is unlikely to be the case. I do not know whether a life cycle review has been carried out, but I shall find out and let the noble Lord know.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister's sudden conversion to the view that nuclear power is necessary and inevitable is very welcome? Of course, it would have been nicer had he been able to complete that before the election, rather than wait until after.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not privy to whether the Prime Minister has or has not decided whether nuclear power should proceed. All that we are doing is having a review of energy policy that will consider whether civil nuclear power should be included.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, in assessing our future energy needs and performing a cost/benefit analysis, will the cost of decommissioning nuclear stations be taken into account?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, any proper costing of different sources of energy would have to include decommissioning costs.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, arising from that question, does my noble friend agree that a totally independent review of the relative costs of generation between different sorts of fuels would be very welcome, but that it would not get us very far if Greenpeace and so on refused to co-operate?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one key issue to be decided in any review is what are the current costs. It would be very helpful if, as part of that review, we were able to establish some independent views as to what were the costs. From my experience, people always find that their favourite source of energy is the least expensive. It should be possible to have an intelligent debate about what are the actual figures.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, if I may rephrase the original Question in a different and perhaps slightly simpler way to get a simpler answer, is it not clear at the moment that nuclear power will not be a renewable energy source in Britain under present plans? As I understand it, every existing nuclear power plant will be decommissioned by 2020, at which stage we will have no more nuclear power under present plans. Given the worry of, in particular, the carbon climate-change effect of traditional power stations moving back to coal because of the increasing price of oil and gas, surely it is time for the Government to make an announcement about when and if they are going to build new nuclear power stations.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no one has ever suggested that nuclear power being renewable means that nuclear power stations go on indefinitely. The question with all energy sources is whether, because they are or are not using a finite source of energy, they are renewable. The question often raised is: is nuclear power renewable, given that it makes use of uranium, which may have a limited amount of use? The answer I was giving was that other sources can be used and that, for the foreseeable future, they will supply us with all that we need.
	On when we will make a decision, as we have said on numerous occasions, our review will produce proposals by the middle of the year and we will then have the answers.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the amount of uranium available worldwide, given any new nuclear build programmes likely to take place internationally and that Britain has other extremely strong renewables such as tidal power and wind power?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are other sources of energy but, as always, the question is what costs are attached. At this point, the cost of tidal is enormously high and therefore it is very difficult to use it as a source of energy.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Liberal Democrats' shadow spokesman on the environment is the Member of Parliament for Lewes and that, even though he is opposed to civil nuclear power development, his constituents are within a relatively short distance of innumerable nuclear power stations on the French coast? When examining future policy, will the Government take into account that, notwithstanding any decision taken in regard to nuclear power stations within the UK, many in this country will still be very close to nuclear power and waste?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the proximity of some constituents to French nuclear power stations will probably not be the deciding factor in our review of energy. But it raises a very interesting issue: we are apparently prepared always in these circumstances to take energy created by nuclear power in a different country while sometimes resisting it in our own. That does not seem logical whatever one's view is on whether nuclear energy is a good thing.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the noble Lord's announcement during the energy debate that the Government regarded nuclear power as a renewable source was very welcome. Will the review cover the application of the climate-change levy to nuclear power stations?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if any changes are made to energy policy during the review, one of the central things that the review group must consider is what financial incentives are necessary to deliver that energy policy.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, do the Government believe that this is the appropriate moment for British Energy's subsidiary Westinghouse to be sold, when it might play an important part in our future work on nuclear energy? Do the Government approve of that sale?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it will have to be considered whether that conflicts. I do not know the policy on that and I will write to the noble Lord when I know further.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords—

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we must move on.

Police

Lord Greaves: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, following the remarks of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in the Dimbleby lecture, they will support a wide-ranging review of the police force.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I welcome the Metropolitan Police Commissioner's call for a wide-ranging public debate about the kind of police service that we want in this country. What is not required, however, is a wide-ranging review. The Government already have in place an ambitious programme of reform for the police service to ensure that it is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, after I tabled this Question on Friday, we heard the appalling news from Bradford, the city where I grew up, in Yorkshire, of the shooting of Police Constable Sharon Beshenivsky. The sympathy of the whole House goes out to her family and everybody who knew her on that shocking and appalling event. The event has perhaps acted as a catalyst for much more debate about the police and the future of the police than Sir Ian Blair expected when he gave his Dimbleby lecture. Does the Minister agree that, if lots of police routinely carried guns, inevitably more people, including more police officers and other innocent people, would get shot? Will the Government give a lead in the debate on the matter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government, as I am sure that the House will appreciate, are greatly saddened by the tragic death of PC Sharon Beshenivsky. It was a shocking and senseless crime, which serves to remind us all of just what a difficult and dangerous job our serving police officers fulfil every day. That said, the policy in this country has long been that the police should not be armed, which gives a character to our policing that we should not readily give up. Those words and views were echoed by Sir Ian Blair when he spoke last week.
	We do not want to see wholesale arming of the police. Clearly, there are discussions and debates to be had about the level of arms and training which police officers should have. Of course, there will need to be continued debate about other equipment that police officers will need to ensure their adequate, proper and full protection.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, why are the Government hell bent on making decision-making less local and further from the people? Will not that be the effect of reducing the number of police forces from 43 to about 15, just as it would have been the effect of their plans for regional government? What about a bit of democracy for a change?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the Government's view that we need to look at the size and structure of our police forces. In a sense, it comes back to Sir Ian Blair's Dimbleby lecture, asking what sort of police service we want; how we make decisions about the shape of the police service; and who should decide. The move to consider restructuring the police forces in this country has come from within the police service. We await their views on the size and capacity that they feel local police services should have and hold to retain their effectiveness in this century.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, there is a huge amount in the commissioner's speech with which everyone can agree, but will my noble friend confirm that the Government have no plans to absorb the British Transport Police into the metropolitan force? He will recall that on many occasions in this House the work of the BTP has been widely praised, particularly after the terrorist outrages. Does my noble friend agree that the case for keeping a separate police force responsible for the Underground and overground transport policing is still very strong?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Government certainly pay tribute to the work of the British Transport Police, but we are also aware that a debate is going on about the value of its current independence—certainly in the capital—from the Met and the City forces. Currently, we do not have plans to restructure in the way in which the noble Lord suggests, but no doubt that debate will continue as part of the generalised debate about the structure and shape of organisation for police forces up and down the country.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, what comment does the Minister have on Sir Ian Blair's suggestion that better paid police officers should have summary powers to impose driving disqualifications and anti-social behaviour orders on the spot?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have not looked at that in detail in preparing for this Question. I think that the Government's view is that it is an interesting suggestion and something that we should look at along with a range of other ideas that Sir Ian Blair offered up in what I thought was an extremely interesting and thoughtful lecture.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, given the tragic death of Jean Charles de Menezes and the recent appalling shooting of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that any further debate on matters such as shoot to kill and the arming of some officers takes place in an open and transparent way?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I accept the invitation, in a sense, that the noble Lord makes. This is part of a very important continuing debate about the nature of modern policing. Sir Ian Blair has done the nation a great service in offering ideas and refreshed thinking on that subject. That debate needs to continue. It is certainly our desire in the Government to make sure that it is a vigorous debate because we need to engender further public support for our continuing reform process.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that modern police forces need to be large enough to have the strategic capacity both to deal with level 2 crime and to build strong links with their neighbourhoods? It is important that both of these aspects are properly covered.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I strongly identify with that sentiment. The HMIC report concluded that the 43-force structure is no longer fit for purpose and that in the interests of the efficiency and effectiveness of policing it should change. For that reason, we have invited police forces up and down the country to bring forward their ideas on how we might better restructure the forces so that they can deal with cross-boundary crime, which confronts our police service with many major challenges.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in view of the recent analyses which have been carried out, are the Government entirely satisfied with the academic attainment of those entering the police force, and with their training thereafter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, having visited several police training colleges in my time, I am always extremely impressed by the level of educational attainment by police recruits. They are a very fair reflection of our society. They do an extremely important job, they work hard and train hard, and of course the police service itself is always looking to improve quality and raise standards. I hope that the noble Lord supports that aspiration.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 5 pm, my noble friend Lord Warner will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on seasonal influenza vaccine supplies.

European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill [HL]

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a committee of inquiry into the implications of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Pearson of Rannoch.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Terrorism Bill

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Grocott.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbours Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Berkeley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Report received.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 1:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"APPLICATION OF SURPLUS INCOME FROM SAFETY CAMERA ENFORCEMENT
	In section 38 of the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 (c. 3) (unified power for Secretary of State to fund speed cameras etc.), after subsection (5) insert—
	"(6) The relevant national authority may make regulations to permit in specified circumstances income from the enforcement of offences under subsection (2), over and above such income as is required to cover expenditure on the operation of a safety camera scheme, to be used in connection with the provision by the relevant local transport authority of local transport facilities or related environmental improvements, including road safety measures.""

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, before I begin I should first declare an interest as the leader of Essex County Council. Noble Lords will recall that this new clause is designed to enhance local road safety measures by permitting the hypothecation of surplus income from safety camera enforcement for expenditure by relevant local transport authorities on road safety measures. In short, it is intended to provide a source of funding that will enable local expertise to be translated into local road safety initiatives in a manner that is both responsive to and commensurate with the character of local problems.
	My noble friend Lady Hanham moved a similar amendment in Committee and its considerable merits were duly debated. However, in the intervening period my attention has been drawn to an article published in the Times on 5 November entitled:
	"March of the Speed Cameras Halted".
	I was interested to read that, according to the author of the piece, when the Department for Transport publishes its annual report on the safety camera partnership scheme, it is to,
	"announce reforms to the way in which the partnerships are managed and funded".
	The article went on to state that these reforms would abolish the current practice of recycling speeding fines into the funding of new speed camera installations. Instead they would enable safety camera partnerships to use surplus revenue generated from enforcement,
	" . . . in all aspects of road safety. Rather than being restricted to erecting more cameras, the partnerships would be able to use the money to make junctions safer and to improve the visibility of signs and road markings".
	Those proposals sound remarkably familiar. I assume that the Minister has taken on board the logic of the original amendment and, if that is the case, I commend him on his farsightedness. However, as I have been unable to locate any official comment, documentation or amendments to that effect, I ask him to make clear the Government's intention on this important road safety issue. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The Minister should be aware that there is a huge deficit in the amount of money available for local authorities to fund road safety schemes and there is always a waiting of list of schemes to be carried out. There is also a huge deficit in the amount of money needed for road safety education. The number of offices devoted to this task is very small indeed and the task is very large.
	It would make people much more appreciative of speed cameras than they are if they could see that, as a result of the fines paid, money was being spent on schemes which everyone knows are needed. If, as they were under way, schemes displayed a notice saying "This scheme is being funded by the safety camera partnership" it would change many people's attitude towards speed cameras. It is the fact that this money is known to drop into the maw of the Treasury that makes people so resentful. I hope that in his reply the Minister will have some good news for us.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. As I read it, local authorities will be able to use this money to fund free bus travel, which has been declared recently as the Government's policy. I strongly support the amendment not only on the grounds already put forward but on those additional grounds.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, the amendment makes a great deal of sense. However, it is a sad reflection on our times that if people obeyed the speed limit at all times this debate would not be taking place today.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I offer my apologies to the House for not being able to be present for the Committee stage. I shall not fall into the trap of an endless repetition of Committee stage, and certainly not into the trap of a Second Reading speech.
	The amendment makes sense. At the moment we have a somewhat callous and mechanistic formula in regard to speed cameras which requires that there have to be so many deaths and so many serious injuries before you can even install one. Where there is surplus money—and here the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has stolen my argument because I was going to refer to the maw of the Treasury and the money disappearing into it—it must make sense that it is put into safety measures which everyone can see and understand. Who knows, perhaps it will make people more amenable towards the whole theme of speed cameras.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise that the amendment is honourably intended to improve road safety—which is, of course, also one of the objectives of the Bill—but, as I said in Committee when we debated this issue, I do not think the amendment is required. I reiterate those arguments because they still hold.
	The safety camera programme is delivering positive results under the current rules on what this money should be used for and there is no reason to change the rules to determine what can be funded by such income. Local authorities and the police are already funded by other revenue streams to enable them to fund local transport facilities or related environmental improvements, including road safety measures—although I recognise, of course, that there will always be a demand from such sources for extra resources because there are always useful ideas that can be implemented.
	I should mention to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that we intend fully to fund bus passes through other sources—that is, through the £360 million already scheduled for them. So that money is already to be made available and ought not to come out of road safety provision. I am at one with both Front Bench spokesmen about these resources being directed towards road safety.
	I reiterate that the road safety programme is not there to raise revenue but has a distinct and different function—to strengthen the detection, enforcement and deterrence of speeding. My noble friend Lord Simon is quite right—we would welcome a decrease in resources and revenues from this base, as it would be an indication that law-abiding driving was taking place and fines were not being imposed.
	It has been suggested that these resources go elsewhere and that this is some form of stealth tax. I made it as clear as I could in Committee that the present legislation demonstrates that that is just not so. It provides that the programme can be applied only to the deployment of cameras. That means that the police and local authorities have no incentive to deploy cameras for any reason except road safety-related to speeding.
	It is important to maintain public confidence that that is the objective of the cameras and that the resources generated by the cameras are directed solely to that end. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, in his usual persuasive way, that we ought to look at revenues in general. We will be undertaking a stock-take of the road safety camera programme so that we can learn from existing and past experience to develop the programme for the future. No decisions on this review have yet been taken, but I hear what the noble Lord says and we will take that into account when conducting the review.
	I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that the principle is very clear. The cameras are there not to raise revenue but merely to ensure that drivers abide by the law. It is important that we maintain confidence in that respect, which is why I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments and am pleased to hear that there will be a review. I am pleased to have been supported by so many noble Lords on all sides of the House.
	My noble friend Lady Gardner mentioned bus passes. Although the noble Lord said that quite a lot of funding was available, it is not sufficient. In my own county of Essex, for example, free bus passes are available only in a district. They would not be available if someone wanted to go from Harlow to Chelmsford. The county council will increase the funding to make certain that free bus passes are available to the whole of the county. I know that that example is nothing to do with the amendment, but it shows how local authorities have to find money all the time to support people in this way.
	I am sorry to use my own county of Essex again, but, given the problems of this year's budget, all our money will go on road improvement and maintenance and there will be very little available for road safety. As I have mentioned in the House before—to some amusement—the main cause of death on the roads in Essex is people over 50 going back to riding motorcycles. The council is putting on road safety courses to help retrain people over 50, who are suddenly able to afford a Harley-Davidson, so that they do not kill themselves on the road. Money should be diverted towards that sort of measure.
	Although the noble Lord said, quite rightly, that the cameras are not there to raise revenue, they do. That is why the amendment proposes that that considerable amount of revenue should be put into road safety measures, such as retraining and helping people. My own authority would be only too pleased to organise many more road safety training programmes if it had more money to do it. If this money were to go back to local authorities, those funds would be available. I was very disappointed by what the Minister said and I wish to test the opinion the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 125

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 7 [Driving record]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 5, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we debated at length in Committee the implications of subsection (2)(e) and the unease surrounding a provision that gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements for other persons to have access to the electronic driving record. I am pleased to say that this concern was allayed by a government amendment to subsection (4). However, a number of important concerns remain with a project of this significance.
	First, is the substitution of the counterpart with an electronic driving record a truly practical measure? In Committee, the Minister was probed on the type of persons or organisations that would be granted access to this new driving record. A number of different suggestions were made regarding the type of employer that might require such information.
	To my knowledge, a vast number of employers, large and small, currently require prospective employees to hold a clean driving licence. This can be easily ascertained by the presentation of a person's driving licence for inspection, since the counterpart is a legal document.
	What will happen under the driving record system? Many businesses and organisations will still require employees to provide that they have a clean driving licence. In the light of the amendment recently moved by the Government, does the Minister propose that on each occasion the Secretary of State should place a draft instrument containing the name of such a business—say, for example, a small courier firm—before Parliament, to be approved for access to the driving record computer systems?
	That may seem like an absurd and ridiculous possibility, but the reality is that a large number of businesses require such information, and, since individuals will no longer be in possession of the legal documentation necessary to demonstrate themselves, these businesses will need access to the electronic driving record. A natural consequence will be a huge number of persons and organisations requiring access to the electronic driving record system, and this will present a number of serious logistical and security problems. Will the DVLA be responsible for the verification of the driving licences for employer inquiries, or will employers be granted access to the database? I am curious to know how the Government intend to address this system and eventuality.
	Secondly, can we trust the integrity of the driving record? Without a paper copy to prove that we do not have any driving endorsements, how can we dispute information contained electronically? In Committee, the Minister stated that the DVLA would write to an individual every time that person's driving record was amended, thereby allowing that person the opportunity to challenge the endorsement.
	Yet how would a person be able to do so in practice? At present, I imagine that it is decidedly unlikely that such a mistake could be made, because the licence available obviously has the endorsement on it. It can be presented to authorities, as we all know, if you have a conviction on a driving offence. Therefore, under the present system, it seems unlikely that a person will allow their licence to be endorsed without guilt of any offence.
	As I understand from the Minister's explanation in Committee, under the proposed electronic driving records system, a person may request a paper copy of his or her driving record. However, unlike the counterpart, that will not be considered a legal document and will, as a result, not constitute adequate proof. The seriousness of that possibility is amplified by the growing trend in electronic identity theft. Once we remove privately held legal documentation and choose to concentrate valuable personal information in a single electronic system with no tangible mechanism for verification, how can we but increase people's vulnerability to fraud, as there are mistakes and computer errors?
	Furthermore, judging by the Government's record on information technology—we all know how difficult some such systems are—is it wise to transfer all this important information on to such a system? The Government's latest foray into the world of budget information technology systems—the NHS project Connecting for Health—is not faring too well, running over-budget and over-time. Remember, this is a project that follows in the less-than-successful path of similarly expensive and ambitious IT projects created for the Passport Agency, air traffic control and the CSA. Will the Minister assure the House that the driving records project will not face a similar fate? I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he introduced the amendment. As he recognises, Clause 7, which he seeks to amend, introduces the concept of a driving record maintained by the Secretary of State, which would be the official record of a driver's endorsement history. That would enable the introduction at Clause 9 of the new system that we propose of endorsement for all drivers based on inspection of the driving record rather than the counterpart.
	I bear in mind what the noble Lord says about the difficulties with regard to technology and how we have to take care with a data bank of such significance. We think that it will take considerable time before we can commence the new system of endorsement. We cannot see it being in place in any fewer than three years, and it will probably be as many as five years before it is implemented. That is because we need to take care, as he indicated, of the creation of the new system. Noble Lords will recognise the complexity of any system that creates the necessary electronic links between the police, the courts and the DVLA, and establishes alternative procedures for all the other functions that the counterpart currently provides.
	We have tried to identify all the persons who at this stage we envisage would require access to information held on the driving record. But it may be apparent, when we come to implement the new system, that others require access in order for the system to work. That is why we have the provision in the clause for the Secretary of State to make additions.
	In view of the potential significance of the power to extend the categories in new Section 97A(2)(e), the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended at paragraph 28 of its report that the affirmative procedure should apply. We are of course content to follow that recommendation, and we amended the Bill in Committee so that the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure now applies to the power to make regulations under new Section 97A(2)(e).
	That means that regulations prescribing persons other than those detailed in the Bill to have access to the driving record would be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. I maintain that that safeguard meets the anxieties of the noble Lord regarding this very difficult question. I am at one with him in recognising that the matter raises significant technical issues of implementation. That is why we intend to take our time and to take great care over the procedure. We recognise how important this record is. However, I think the noble Lord will recognise that to delete from the Bill an opportunity for the Secretary of State to add additional persons to the list through regulation rather than to introduce primary legislation would constitute a great limitation, if only because we have also given the clear assurance that any regulation adding names will be brought before both Houses. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that the powers which are sought here are subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. He did not respond to all my points. I hope that he will reflect on them and write to me. I still do not understand why the Government need to introduce this system. The public do not like having endorsements but at least those are recorded on driving licences and are known about. I do not believe that the storing of endorsements on a computer system will be popular with the public. I am not certain how the system will work. The Minister assures me that it may be five years away. On the other hand, five years can pass quickly. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the matter and before Third Reading communicate any further points that he believes noble Lords should be aware of. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 4:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"ENDORSABLE OFFENCES
	(1) In section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)—
	(a) in subsection (1), for "fourteen" substitute "sixteen";
	(b) in subsection (3), for "fourteen" substitute "sixteen".
	(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences)—
	(a) in the entry relating to RTA section 14, in column (6) insert "Obligatory.";
	(b) in the entry relating to RTA section 15(2), in column (6) insert "Obligatory";
	(c) in the entry relating to RTA section 15(4), in column (6) insert "Obligatory"."

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for a measure that was omitted from the Road Traffic Act 1988. I have been advised on the matter by the police who seek to fill this gap in the previous legislation. That legislation allows the police to prosecute someone driving with a child passenger when the latter is not wearing a seat belt provided the child is 14 years of age and under. When the relevant person reaches 17 years of age he is deemed to be responsible on his own account and he can then be prosecuted for not wearing a seat belt. Apparently, no one aged 15 or 16 can be prosecuted for not wearing a seat belt. The purpose of the amendment is to complete the cycle to enable the person driving the car to be prosecuted when travelling with a child up to the age of 16 when the latter is not wearing a seat belt, as a person aged 17 can be prosecuted on his own account for not wearing a seat belt. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord both for his accuracy and his brevity, which I shall try to match in my reply. I understand his concern that as persons under 16 cannot be charged with the offence we are discussing there is an apparent gap in the law. I am at one with him in seeking to ensure that compliance with seat belt laws extends as far as possible. We have no doubt at all about the efficacy of seat belts as a road safety measure. That applies to young passengers as much as to drivers and others. I share that objective with the noble Lord.
	There is no doubt that getting people to wear seat belts has made an enormous difference to road casualty figures, and the noble Lord is seeking to build on that. As I explained in Committee, the two proposals made in this amendment raise wider issues about law enforcement and levels of fines. Consistency is also important, and the issues should be considered as a whole and not piecemeal, offence by offence.
	Reference was made in Committee to what Home Office circulars say about young offenders. Home Office Circular 7/97 advises that fixed penalty notices can be given to 16 and 17 year-olds. Home Office Circular 92/85 advises that fixed penalty notices for road traffic offences should not be given to younger juveniles. That is simply because they may not have the money to pay. If the fines are to be realistic, how do they pay such an amount? If they do not pay, parents or carers may find themselves, as guardians, with an unexpected summons in respect of a fixed penalty notice. It is therefore police policy not to issue fixed penalty notices to juveniles for failure to wear a seat belt.
	However, that does not mean that the police cannot deal with juveniles; they can take whatever action they consider appropriate. They can, if necessary, charge someone with an offence, which means a summons to appear in court. It is not true that the courts cannot deal with people under the age of 16. The normal penalty for seat belt wearing offences would apply, which is a fine up to a maximum of £500. It remains the Government's view, as I said in Committee, that it would be unwise to change the arrangements just for this one offence until we have properly considered the wider question in the round. It was explained in Committee that the Home Office is addressing the issue of juveniles, and I hope that the House will recognise that wider issues are involved.
	It was explained in Committee why the Government consider that the endorsement of licences with penalty points should be reserved for the most serious driving offences. Having regard to that and to the structure of penalties generally, the Government believe that the proposed level 2 fine of £500 is appropriate for the offence of not wearing a seat belt. Endorsement, which automatically increases the fixed penalty fine from £30 to £60, would put the offence on a par with speeding and traffic light offences. I put it to noble Lords that they are not the same level of offence, not least because of the danger to other road users caused by the other offences, which scarcely would apply with regard to the seat belt offence. The best approach is to continue our constant attempts to educate drivers about the importance of seat belts, supported by police enforcement as appropriate.
	I am not complacent about rates of seat belt use; we campaign constantly to get them higher because we are not satisfied. Even 93 per cent compliance by people in the front seats of cars is too low, and there is still a problem with children in the rear of cars. Nevertheless, we have been making considerable progress with compliance in recent years. I accept that there is a lower level of wearing of seatbelts for adults in the rear of cars, and we intend to continue to campaign and work on that problem. I hope the noble Lord will recognise that there are difficulties with his amendments, although I entirely share his objectives. We have good reasons why we want to consider the offences within that context, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, I have to say that the fact that he might consider the introduction of changes along with other amendments at some time in the future is similar to a kick in a rugby match that goes out of sight over the stands. It does not deal with the problem that the police confront day after day. If, in bringing forward the Act, there was real determination in the department to actually do something about it, I would be more impressed. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 134

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 4A:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"PEDICABS
	(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for—
	(a) the application of relevant enactments to pedicabs; and
	(b) the enforcement of relevant enactments in relation to pedicabs.
	(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision—
	(a) identifying the person against whom enforcement action may be taken if there is a contravention of a relevant enactment;
	(b) for the registration of pedicabs by specified authorities and the provision and display of registration plates on pedicabs;
	(c) for the payment of fees for registration;
	(d) for the making of registers available for inspection and sale;
	(e) for offences relating to registration;
	(f) for transitional arrangements.
	(3) The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (c. xxiv) is amended as follows.
	(4) In section 15(11) (parking on footways, grass verges, etc.), in the definition of "vehicles", after "means" insert "a pedicab (within the meaning given by section (Pedicabs) of the Road Safety Act 2005),".
	(5) The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (c. iii) is amended as follows.
	(6) In section 4(5) (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions), for the words "motor vehicle" there is substituted "vehicle".
	(7) In section 4(16), the definition of "motor vehicle" is omitted and the following definition is inserted at the end—
	""vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads and a pedicab within the meaning given by section (Pedicabs) of the Road Safety Act 2005.".
	(8) In this section—
	"the appropriate national authority" means—
	(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
	(b) in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales;
	"pedicab" means a cycle constructed or adapted—
	(a) to seat one or more passengers; and
	(b) for the purpose of being made available with a driver for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers;
	"relevant enactment" means—
	(a) section 15 (parking on footways, grass verges, etc.) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 (c. xxiv);
	(b) Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40) (traffic in London);
	(c) Part II of and Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (c. ix) (bus lanes);
	(d) regulations made under section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 (c. 38) (civil penalties for bus lane contraventions);
	(e) Part 2 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (road traffic and highways);
	(f) regulations under section 72 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (c. 18) (civil penalties for road traffic contraventions);
	(g) any other enactment relating to road traffic regulation, specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, which provides for the service of penalty charge notices or notices to owner on the owner of a vehicle;
	"specified authority" means—
	(a) in Greater London, Transport for London;
	(b) elsewhere in England and Wales, a traffic authority."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before speaking to the amendment, I remind the House that, first, I am a member of a local authority and, secondly, I am a magistrate who deals with road traffic offences.
	I have been briefed by Westminster City Council on this amendment and it is also supported by Transport for London. It brings us back to a rather unusual mode of travel, of which there have been a couple in this Bill—that of pedicabs. I am sure that many noble Lords have seen them—they are cycle rickshaws. As a mode of transport, they are becoming increasingly popular, particularly with tourists, and I am told that around 200 now operate in the West End each day. Although they provide a useful and exciting service for tourists, they are probably causing an increasing number of problems.
	As more and more pedicabs appear on the street, they tend to congregate at particular locations, such as Covent Garden tube station and outside theatres, and they are beginning to cause problems of obstruction. Apart from that, the specific problems that they cause arise from the fact that they park on footways and partly on the carriageway, thus obstructing both pedestrians and general traffic; they park on pedestrianised areas, causing obstructions in areas around theatres, including dangerous obstructions around fire escapes; and buses have been forced out of bus lanes into general traffic, which is clearly a safety hazard—though the briefing does not say to whom. There have been examples of pedicabs blocking the routes of ambulances.
	Despite that, there are currently no means by which a local authority or other highway and traffic authority, including Transport for London, can control pedicabs. They are not registered, and not licensed with anyone in London. There is no legal means by which the city council can register or licence them itself. Currently, they are effectively treated as pedal cycles, which means that they do not have an easily identifiable registration number which could be used to issue a penalty charge notice. In short, the problems which the city council faces, and other councils are likely to face in the future, are almost incapable of being dealt with.
	The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill included proposals for bringing pedicabs under existing traffic legislation until the proposals were rejected by the Opposed Private Bill Committee. The proposals under that Bill would have meant that pedicab operators needed to have every pedicab registered with Transport for London, in much the same way as other vehicles are licensed with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. They would also have to carry registration plates. Those, in turn, would have allowed enforcement action to be taken against them when they were contravening parking or other moving traffic regulations.
	The proposed content of the Bill covered only registration, not licensing—as indeed does this amendment. It would not, therefore, have introduced any controls on the operators or drivers, the state of the vehicles themselves, or have required insurance to be carried. It is hoped that full licensing will eventually be achieved or required if they continue to be the attraction they are currently.
	Westminster City Council's evidence shows that there are very good reasons why the issue of registration needs to be dealt with as swiftly as possible. This should not have to wait for the implementation of a future licensing regime. It is not easy to understand why the Opposed Bill Committee was not convinced of the need for registration, but it was not. The problems would appear to have been opposition from the petitioners and the Government, all of whom argued for regulation by another route, and the prospect of regulation by such a route being on the horizon. But it is not clear what that regulation route is, and any future Transport for London Bill could not introduce the powers to issue penalty charge notices for traffic conventions because a Transport for London Bill cannot address issues that are of concern to both Transport for London and to the London local authorities.
	Furthermore, if legislation is required for licensing, this cannot be achieved through a London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill, because licensing is only a concern for Transport for London. So whatever way you look at it, it does not look as though it is going to be possible. That is why registration is needed so desperately. London local authorities and Transport for London cannot issue penalty charge notices for parking and moving traffic offences to pedicabs without it.
	Pedicabs pose potentially serious road safety problems in and around the West End. I also remind noble Lords that people are carried in these pedicabs. They therefore need to be safe before people clamber into them. They are also, I understand, becoming increasing costly, although of course registration would not deal with that. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support what the noble Baroness has said. I have personally been quite inconvenienced by the said vehicles around Leicester Square station. They are used, certainly late at night, in a pretty reckless fashion.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I travelled home recently in a bus going up Oxford Street. It was obstructed several times en route by one of these pedicabs. The bus driver had a lot of very powerful comments to make about it. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, perhaps I may give a little support from this side—though I do not know how much support. I thought I would do so because I feel that, in the West End and the places that the noble Baroness has described, pedicabs are becoming something of a menace. One aspect that the noble Baroness described was the safety of people who may or may not know what the legal position is, but they may be tourists and not realise the dangers.
	I am inherently in favour of competition, and therefore I am perhaps not so impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, said about taxicabs. I have a feeling sometimes that taxicabs go unduly close to these people because they dislike them and the competition. Can the noble Baroness give one or two facts, maybe from Westminster council, about the numbers involved? Are we talking simply about Westminster or a rather larger area; and do we have any facts about insurance? I imagine there are not any, but I should be glad to know if there are. That sort of thing would help us to determine whether there is a need for this action at this time as distinct from keeping an eye on it.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I cannot support this amendment. It seems to me that this is the ultimate taxi driver's revenge, as my noble friend Lord Borrie has hinted. The only time I have used one of these things was about six years ago when I got married, to come from the register office in Marylebone down to your Lordships' House. It was great fun with my wife. These things may be irritating to other people, but that is not a reason per se for saying that they should be banned or controlled.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that they sometimes park on the footpaths and they park on carriageways. So do cars, all the time. They get in the way of buses and bus lanes. So do bicycles and motor cycles. They are not allowed in there but they still do. And they block routes of ambulances. Well, so do cars and bicycles. They are at least environmentally friendly. I suspect that there is a problem of insurance as my noble friend has indicated. There does not seem to be much competition in the charges that they charge. But I am not persuaded that that is a good enough reason to try to regulate them. We have not heard from any noble Lord what number of accidents they are reported to have caused, or how many people have been killed, if any, or seriously injured. I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie: I think that this is the taxi drivers having a jolly good go at getting the competition off the streets.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in this short debate, we have heard that there are differences of opinion about this issue. The Government's attitude is that we are aware that there is a problem and that there are anxieties, but we think it is premature to act in primary legislation now. The noble Baroness prayed in aid Transport for London as having anxieties. She is right: it is concerned about it. It is examining the whole situation in the round to see what kind of regulation may be necessary. It is exactly the body that should do that.
	This is a London issue. To respond to my noble friend Lord Borrie, who asked some pertinent questions of the noble Baroness, pedicabs outside London are subject to license by the licensing authorities, so we are discussing only a London issue. Because of that, Transport for London is the body to examine the position as a whole. We want it to give full consideration to the matter and come up with a scheme that will work. There are problems with the scheme proposed in the amendment. We are by no means convinced that the registration scheme proposed in the amendment would be a proper or comprehensive system of regulation. There is a risk that regulation will be taken by the public as conferring a greater degree of control and safety insurance than may be the case. That is why we need to consider the totality of the position—all the anxieties raised by both my noble friends need to be considered.
	The scheme that Transport for London will bring forward will also be directly relevant to the second leg of the concerns underlying the amendment: enforcing traffic and parking offences. Identification and tracking down of offenders is crucial. I recognise that that is a problem with pedicabs at present. Licensing as now proposed in London will provide just that means of identification as part of the wider system of control. Pedicabs are already subject to police control and enforcement in moving traffic offences. I recognise the issue of civil enforcement of offences. The department is considering that closely. We are very willing to hold further meetings with all interested parties, but we want Transport for London to take the lead in introducing a new licensing regime. It is the proper body to be able to tackle the issue in the round.
	As I said, we do not need primary legislation for other local authorities, because they are subject to licensing at present. The noble Baroness has raised an important issue on which we want action. It may not need primary legislation and we should leave it with the proper body to emerge with proposals. On that basis, I hope that she will feel that her problem is being addressed and that she can safely withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that it raises a most unfortunate parallel with minicabs when he says that outside London all these things are already regulated but in London they are not? It took years before we got regulation of minicabs in London. Why should London, as the capital, be disadvantaged? I am still unclear about what he said about TfL having the power. Does the Minister mean that TfL has the power already or not? I thought that the whole purpose of the amendment was that TfL did not have the power.
	I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to accept that I never mentioned cabs. I was travelling in a bus—a large double-decker bus. It was the driver of the bus who was complaining.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we do not know the scheme and the requirements that TfL will propose, therefore we are not in a position to make that judgment. The clause the noble Baroness proposes contains clear imperfections. We are concerned that the issue should be tackled but we respectfully maintain that it is not for Parliament to reach a decision before Transport for London has fully considered all the issues and proposed a scheme. We await the outcome of its deliberations and will assist it with everything that it requires in its proposals.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, once again there is prevarication. It is extraordinary how we manage to lose opportunities on the basis that we can find other legislation in which to bring forward road safety requirements.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I think that I said that there were 200 pedicabs, but the number is rising by the minute because it is quite easy for an unemployed person, for example, to hire a pedicab, set off and earn some money with it. It will be an increasing attraction with time. I am certain that no insurance is involved. That puts people sitting in the back of a pedicab in some peril if it tips over and they are hurt. At present, in London, it is primarily Westminster City Council that is affected because it has most of the theatres and tourist attractions.
	I do not know whether there have been any accidents or injuries. I would much rather that there had not, and I am sure that that is the case. A pedicab is an unusual and innovative way of getting around London. The question is what we do to ensure that they do not cause trouble.
	I reiterate to the Minister that there seems a dichotomy between the roles of Transport for London and the London local authorities in this regard. According to my brief, any future Transport for London Bill cannot introduce the powers to issue PCNs for traffic contraventions because such a Bill cannot address issues that are the concerns of both Transport for London and the local authorities. Transport for London can consider it until its head drops off but there does not seem to be legislation by which it can do anything further about it. Furthermore, if legislation is required for licensing—we are talking about registration because licensing appears to involve those difficulties—it cannot be achieved through a London local authorities and Transport for London Bill because licensing is a concern only for Transport for London. That is the conundrum with which we are left in waiting for a licensing system to be introduced.
	I hear that the noble Lord will not support my amendment and I will not push it today because I need further information so that at Third Reading we are clear on the answers to some of the questions raised. It would be unfortunate if the Government did not support a registration system, which is on a lower level than licensing and could be implemented in the Bill to provide at least some control over pedicabs at an early stage, before they cause too much trouble.
	If the Minister has any further thoughts on my amendment before Third Reading, I would be grateful to hear them. I shall seek further views from Westminster City Council and Transport for London. For today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 3 [Endorsement: all drivers]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 80, line 24, leave out "appropriate person" and insert "fixed penalty clerk"

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to the other three amendments tabled in my name, which concern minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 3, to ensure that all relevant legislative references are properly updated to take account of the provisions in the Bill concerning the new system of endorsement. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 8:
	Page 80, line 25, leave out "appropriate person" and insert "fixed penalty clerk"
	Page 82, line 18, leave out "entry relating to section 99" and insert "entries relating to sections 98A(7) and 99(5)"
	Page 83, line 37, leave out "(4)" and insert "(4)(b)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"TARGETED BREATH TESTING
	(1) Where a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes that—
	(a) incidents involving persons driving on a road or other public place while unfit to drive through drink or drugs may take place in any locality in his area, and
	(b) it is expedient to do so to prevent their occurrence,
	he may give an authorisation that the powers to administer preliminary tests conferred by this section shall be exercisable at any place within that locality for a period not exceeding 24 hours.
	(2) If it appears to an officer of or above the rank of superintendent that it is expedient to do so, having regard to offences which have, or are reasonably suspected to have, been committed in connection with any activity falling within the authorisation, he may direct that the authorisation shall continue for a further 24 hours.
	(3) If an inspector gives an authorisation under subsection (1) he must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an officer of or above the rank of superintendent to be informed.
	(4) This section confers on any constable in uniform power to administer a preliminary breath test, a preliminary impairment test or a preliminary drugs test pursuant to the provisions of sections 6A to 6D of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52).
	(5) A constable may, in the exercise of those powers, administer any preliminary tests he thinks fit whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting that alcohol or drugs have been consumed.
	(6) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposed under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and four penalty points or discretionary disqualification or both.
	(7) Any authorisation under this section shall be in writing signed by the officer giving it and shall specify the grounds on which it is given and the locality in which and the period during which the powers conferred by this section are exercisable and a direction under subsection (2) above shall also be given in writing or, where that is not practicable, recorded in writing as soon as it is practicable to do so.
	(8) Where a preliminary test is administered by a constable under this section, the driver shall be entitled to obtain a written statement that the test was administered under the powers conferred by this section if he applies for such a statement not later than the end of the period of twelve months from the day on which the test was administered.
	(9) In this section—
	"vehicle" includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (c. 62);
	"preliminary breath test" means a test as specified in section 6A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
	"preliminary impairment test" means a test as specified in section 6B of the Road Traffic Act 1988;
	"preliminary drugs test" means a test as specified in section 6C of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	(10) The powers conferred by this section are in addition to and not in derogation of any power otherwise conferred."

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, this amendment would allow the police to undertake targeted breath testing for a maximum of 24 hours where an inspector believes that drinking and driving may be taking place. The same amendment was moved in Committee in June when the Minister said that he and the Government were reluctant to accept it. However, since then, two new pieces of information have become available. First, the figures published in Road Casualties Great Britain: 2004 indicate a continuing rise in drink-driving fatalities. In 2004, 590 people died in crashes involving illegal alcohol levels—a rise of 10 people over the previous year, and a level which is higher than that in 1996. The problem of drinking and driving remains a major road safety issue, especially as the number of road deaths fell by 8 per cent between 2003 and 2004. If the Government are not prepared to encourage target breath testing, what other policies and initiatives do they favour?
	The second piece of new information is the figures published earlier this year by the Home Office covering breath testing by individual police forces. There are significant variations between police forces in England and Wales in the number of tests carried out per hundred thousand head of population from 390 in Hertfordshire to 3,390 in Derbyshire. While it is wrong to take that figure as the sole criterion for judging a police force's commitment to reducing drinking and driving, nevertheless, the disparities in the figures raise questions about how seriously each force takes action on this issue.
	The current legal position already allows discretion to the police officer to ask for a breath test on suspicion, although that applies only to an individual suspect rather than to a collection of people. This amendment would remove that ambiguity and enable police forces to do a better job where targeted breath testing can provide a useful deterrent. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment, although I do not think that it goes far enough as I strongly favour random breath testing. Particularly with all the new changes in the alcohol laws, this problem will get worse rather than better.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the amendment because it goes just far enough.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I agree completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in danger of pouring cold water on so far a unanimous House. I admire the ingenuity of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in the way in which he has constructed his amendment. We had not seen anything like it—or similar to it—until he proposed it on 27 June in Committee. We recognise the skill that has gone into the construction of the amendment and its objectives, which seek to ensure that we make our roads safer by greater control over drinking and driving.
	As noble Lords will recognise, there is a wide range of approaches to breath-testing policy. This one gives additional and free-standing powers to the police to establish what might be called campaigns of testing for a limited time and in a limited locality. The safeguard for the law-abiding motorist is that these campaigns must be authorised by a reasonably senior officer, as the noble Earl indicated, and that someone who is required to be tested can request a written statement to explain the circumstances of the test. I see this as a helpful concept in taking public support with us on the question of breath testing. I say that because, despite the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, she will recognise that the concept of random breath testing does not command universal assent.
	Nevertheless, while it was suggested by some that this proposal would not go far enough—although in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it would go just far enough—for the Government it is a step too far, given the current practice of the police in their enforcement procedures against drink-driving. The police are content with their existing powers in this area and we would not wish to widen them.
	Since we last discussed this proposal, we have available further drink-driving statistics which show that while the number of road fatalities where alcohol is a factor has increased, at least the overall number of accidents has gone down from 12,400 in 2003 to 11,220 provisionally for 2004. I am also pleased to report to the House that since the publication of the joint Home Office, Department for Transport and ACPO Roads Policing Strategy, two well-attended conferences have been held on roads policing. The first was held by ACPO in October and the second by the Police Federation just last week. That shows that the police are taking this issue very seriously.
	Our short debate today indicates how clearly noble Lords recognise that this is a problem which needs to be tackled. However, I repeat that, first, the police are content with their existing powers; secondly, we discuss regularly how the police enforce the existing law; and, thirdly, we have seen an improvement in one set of statistics. I am not at all complacent about the situation and we all know of the problems in this area. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that his amendment would not add to police efficiency, while at the same time acknowledging that we share his concern about this issue. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but on the case for targeted breath testing I should reiterate a couple of points. First, we have failed to sustain a proper reduction in drink-driving casualties; and, secondly, all the studies have shown that effective enforcement and the fear of being caught present real deterrents. I hear what the Minister says when he offers encouraging statistics, and I note his assertion that the police are content. Nevertheless, further thought should be given to this matter before Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 13 [Alcohol ignition interlocks]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 16, leave out lines 14 to 17 and insert—
	"(12) Where an alcohol ignition interlock is fitted to a motor vehicle as part of an approved alcohol ignition interlock programme relating to an offender, a person commits an offence if—
	(a) he interferes with the alcohol ignition interlock with intent to cause it not to function or not to function properly, or
	(b) he is a person other than the offender and provides or attempts to provide a specimen of breath for the purposes of the alcohol ignition interlock with intent to enable the driving (or continued driving) of the vehicle by the offender."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 13. Clause 13 gives the courts the power in certain circumstances to offer offenders the opportunity to participate, at their own expense, in an "alcohol ignition interlock programme". Where an offender agrees to this, his overall period of disqualification may be reduced.
	In Committee the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, questioned what would happen if a person other than the offender provided a specimen of breath to allow the offender to drive the car. I note that he has tabled an amendment to that effect today, which I hope he will withdraw when he has heard my remarks.
	My response then and my view now is that the risk of the wrong person giving a breath specimen, or at least of this happening without detection, is low. A strong deterrence factor is that the offender, having committed money to the scheme and having the opportunity to drive again, will not risk throwing it all away. He has everything to lose. Nevertheless, I concede the point made by the noble Earl that a person who provides or attempts to provide a specimen of breath to enable the offender to drive the vehicle should not go unpunished, because it would be a serious interference with the law. We therefore propose to amend the provisions set out in new Section 34D(12) to provide not only that an offence will be committed where a person interferes with the alcohol ignition interlock with intent to cause it not to function or not to function properly, but it will now also be an offence for a person other than the offender to provide or attempt to provide a specimen of breath with intent to enable the offender to drive or continue to drive the vehicle. Government Amendment No. 10 substitutes a new subsection (12) into the proposed new Section 34D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to achieve this. Government Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are consequential amendments arising from Amendment No. 10.
	I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his contribution. I hope that, in view of our constructive response, he will both support our amendments and withdraw his own. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for accepting my suggestion that there might be a loophole. I shall obviously not move my amendment—the Minister's amendment is much better drafted—but I take it that the Minister intends it to be legal for a sober person to release the alcohol ignition interlock so that a person other than the offender, who may have been drinking but is not necessarily over the limit, may drive the vehicle. That is the effect of the drafting. I suspect it is what the Minister intends because he will have considered the issue very carefully. It is a little peculiar—I do not know why would we want anyone to be able to drive a vehicle when they have been drinking—but if that is what the Minister intends, I am quite content. I am grateful to the Minister for his action.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for that contribution. The intention and the achievement is as I stated when I moved the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
	Page 19, line 26, leave out "Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988" and insert "Schedule 1 to that Act (offences to which certain sections apply)—
	(a) in paragraph 3, after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) an offence under section 34D(12) of this Act,", and.
	(b) in paragraph 4, before paragraph (a) insert—
	"(za) an offence under section 34D(12) of this Act,".
	(4) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act"
	Page 19, line 29, column 2, at end insert "etc."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
	"RETRO-REFLECTIVE MARKINGS
	In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 80 (approval marks) insert—
	"80A RETRO-REFLECTIVE MARKINGS
	The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument require the fitting of retro-reflective tape complying with ECE 104 to international category vehicles N2 and N3 and on goods trailers under the international classification 03 and 04 newly registered in the United Kingdom.""

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this is a simple, straightforward amendment that would require the fitting of retro-reflective tape on the side of new heavy goods vehicles. The Government acknowledge that they have the power to act in the UK and that research indicates that they should act to introduce such a measure. During the debate in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said:
	"Yes, the powers exist and yes, because of the updated research, we are reconsidering the matter".—[Official Report, 4/7/05; col. 440.]
	Yet the Government opposed the proposal at the recent meeting of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and continue to resist action in the UK.
	The regulatory impact assessment published as part of the consultation found that,
	"There is a cost benefit for fitting line or contour markings to newly registered HGVs greater than 7.5t."
	The study by the Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute at Loughborough University, which informed the RIA, found that mandating ECE 104 for HGVs newly-registered in the UK would save lives without putting a disproportionate burden on the industry. At a recent UNECE meeting it was decided to progressively make ECE 104 retro-reflective tape mandatory on the side and rear of HGVs in all UNECE countries. This will apply to all new types of HGVs from 2007, but newly-registered HGVs only from 2011.
	However, we understand that the UK was the only country to oppose even this very modest proposal. Indeed, given the UK's excellent reputation for road safety, it is disappointing that it is so out of step with the other countries. Furthermore, the DfT has recently completed a consultation on making ECE 104 retro-reflective tape mandatory on the side and rear of HGVs. The consultation closed on 16 September.
	In a House of Commons Written Answer on 18 October, the Government said that the results of the consultation would be published shortly. They have still not been released. We are aware of at least 16 positive responses to the consultation from road safety groups, industry bodies and parliamentarians.
	Further evidence points to the benefits of introducing such a measure. A study by the European Commission published in late 2004 found that there was a cost benefit in requiring all new HGVs in the European Union of more than 3.5 tonnes to be fitted with this tape. The Loughborough study, commissioned by the Department for Transport and published in May 2005, found that for the UK:
	"There is a cost benefit for fitting [ECE 104 retro-reflective] line markings to newly registered HGVs greater than 7.5t".
	All the evidence is in favour of it. The Department of Transport's own study found that mandating ECE 104 would not only save lives but also reduce road safety-related costs. The Government have found that the measure will save lives and is cost-effective, but have continued to drag their feet about it. All arguments against making ECE 104 mandatory on the side and rear of HGVs newly registered in the UK have been countered. It should be made mandatory. The overwhelming majority of vehicles can easily be fitted with this tape. The number of vehicles which cannot is minuscule. The Government should ask the industry to find ways of dealing with that small number.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, acknowledged in Committee that the Government have the power to act in the UK, as I said earlier, and the research indicates that they should act. Why do they continue to oppose this proposal? I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I hope the Minister may have some good news for us, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I have heard the terms "shortly", "early in the new year" and "later in the year" so often that I wonder whether those in the Department for Transport have a calendar or clock, or whether time, for them, is measured in seasons.
	On 7 November, three people were killed on the southbound hard shoulder of the M1, when their car drove into the back of a lorry. The head injuries were quite dreadful. That is exactly the sort of accident we could stop. The means of stopping it are easy to envisage and to find, and it could be done very simply. I fully support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has said and I await the Minister's response.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hanningfield for moving his amendment again. In respect of the word "shortly", I was advised that the special types general order would be coming shortly, and that meant 10 years.
	I am convinced about the effectiveness of the materials, but I have two concerns. First, I am not convinced that a competitive market exists for this material. Perhaps the Minister has done some work on this and can tell us whether he believes there is a competitive market for it.
	Secondly, I believe that older vehicles are slightly more prone to involvement in side impact accidents, which are very serious. So if we go down this route, the material ought to be applied to all vehicles after a period of, say, four years, rather than just new vehicles. Heavy goods vehicle trailers, for example, can have quite long lives of 10 or 15 years. If it is a good idea, the material should be applied to all heavy goods vehicles after a few years.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is correct that it should be applied to all vehicles, but I get the impression that in this case perfection may be the enemy of the good, and it would be better to start with the amendment. This is a no-brainer. Of course the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association will oppose it. They would, wouldn't they? In the same way, the road safety organisations will support it. We need to think about the effect and the cost.
	How long are we going to wait and how many more people are going to be killed in the way illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, before we get on and do this? Apparently, the powers exist. Let us get on and do it. I cannot understand how we can oppose this in a European forum. I hope that the Minister has brought the good news that we are going to go ahead tomorrow.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether there is a competitive market for these fittings. If they benefit road safety and reduce the number of people killed and injured on the road, that is totally irrelevant. It is the lives of the people who might be injured that one has to take into account.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, drew attention to a fatal crash on the M1, where a car went into the back of an HGV. That could have been a car going into the back of a car, which would have resulted in exactly the same thing; that is, people being killed. Why is this regulation not being applied to all vehicles? I refer to the amendment in Committee. I still think that it should be applied to all vehicles. I give the example of going round a corner and meeting side on a vehicle that has crashed into it. You would not see it in darkness or you might not have sufficient time to brake. You might crash; you might kill yourself. The regulation should be applied to all vehicles.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, a competitive market is important because one manufacturer is advising us to go down this route. We were caught out in the past with spray suppression equipment for heavy goods vehicles. One manufacturer managed to get Parliament to agree to fit spray suppression equipment. It was quite expensive; the whole fleet was fitted with it; and we subsequently realised that we did not need it. So it is an important point.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, you can already see vehicles which have been fitted with reflective tape on the roads now. You can see that it works.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am glad that noble Lords expect me to be the harbinger of good news. I am always a harbinger of good news because I bring the Government's view on these complex issues. I begin by apologising for the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, who replied to this debate on the previous occasion. She is unfortunately ill with food poisoning, so noble Lords will have to put up with my answer today.
	As we indicated then, this amendment is unnecessary because powers to regulate the use of the material in question already exist. The issue with which we are faced is that Europe is concerned to provide a whole series of regulations for all types of heavy goods vehicles. Compliance with these regulations will become mandatory in the UK through the forthcoming introduction of a European system of,
	"whole vehicle type approval for new goods vehicles and their trailers".
	This approval system, which will provide a regulatory framework against which vehicles can be assessed, is being developed by the European Commission and member states.
	As I have indicated, UK regulations already permit the use of ECE 104 tape. If we began work now to change UK regulations to mandate the tape, there would be only a short period before the introduction of the amended regulations and that of the European approval system. We do not consider the cost and time that would be needed to make these changes separately to be justified, given the small benefit which would be achieved by a slightly earlier introduction. I am not underestimating the importance of the concept for road safety, but we are talking about a very limited period between our capacity to introduce the limited powers that we have and the whole vehicle position which the European Union is developing.
	The introduction date for that has still to be agreed, but it will be mandatory for all new goods vehicles and their trailers. Therefore, the House will recognise that we do not see that we would derive benefit from acting on powers which already exist in legislation. But in any case the amendment is unnecessary, because we enjoy those powers at present. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the strength of that argument.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his argument would have more force if he told us when the new regulations would come into force?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the answer is, "not just yet". But let me just make the obvious point—nor would any regulations that we proposed within our own powers. All that I am indicating is that the gap is marginal between achieving what we could create, operating unilaterally, and complying as we shall be obliged to with the European requirements. That is the why I am resisting the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. We have had an interesting debate. This is a road safety Bill, and we on these Benches are interested in implementing as soon as possible real measures that save lives. Some things that we have discussed might help—but then there are others that have been proven to save lives, and this is one of them. All the evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, such as accidents on the M1, suggests that these strips could save lives—and we can all cite incidents of that kind. The Minister referred to a whole tranche of European regulations; there may be some that we decide not to implement or that we delay implementation on over time. In this amendment, I am proposing 2007. That still gives two years for the industry to prepare, and it is a date that would be effective. If the European legislation arrives too fast, it would give us time to tie in with that European legislation. I should like to test the opinion of the House on whether we should introduce these tapes in 2007.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 163; Not-Contents, 146.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Flu Vaccine

Lord Warner: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about seasonal flu vaccine. Five years ago, we decided to give higher priority to protecting the health of the public from winter flu. We introduced the annual seasonal flu vaccination programme targeted at those of increased risk from seasonal flu—that is, those aged 65 and over, and those below that age in certain clinical risk groups, as identified by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. This is an annual programme because, of course, each year new strains of influenza can emerge and therefore the flu vaccines need to be reformulated accordingly. In this way, each year the vaccine provides the best protection against the influenza virus circulating.
	"Since the programme was introduced in the winter of 2000–01, vaccination uptake in people aged 65 and over has increased year on year. In the first year of the targeted programme, just over 65 per cent of those aged 65 years and over were vaccinated. Last year, 71.5 per cent of those aged 65 years and over received the seasonal flu vaccine—some 5.2 million people. In addition 1.2 million people in the clinical risk groups were vaccinated.
	"The responsibility for ordering seasonal flu vaccine and the administration of the vaccine has always fallen to general practitioners—this is a GP-led programme. General practitioners order their own supply of vaccine, based on the number of eligible patients on their register. They make contractual arrangements with any of the six manufacturers who supply flu vaccine to the UK.
	"In addition to the GP orders, the Department of Health purchases a stock of flu vaccine each year as part of our contingency planning measures. This is held for emergency use should GPs run into difficulties with vaccine supply.
	"The department routinely meets with representatives from the UK Vaccine Industry Group (UVIG) towards the beginning of each year to inform the industry group how much seasonal flu vaccine will be required in the UK. This is based on the numbers of people covered by the current Department of Health policy.
	"This year the estimated production total from all UK vaccine manufacturers was over 14 million doses, which is more than ever before. This is sufficient to immunise 100 per cent of those in our targeted groups; in other words, the elderly, and the young in clinical risk groups, as described in the Chief Medical Officer's letter to the service in July.
	"We began to hear anecdotal evidence in late October that some GPs may be facing a shortage of flu vaccine. In order to assess the potential problem, officials wrote on 3 November to all primary care trust flu immunisation co-ordinators. This letter provided a reminder of the priority groups for flu vaccination, and how additional stocks of vaccine could be ordered from the Department of Health contingency stock, should extra be required by practices in their area.
	"The current problems may be due to a combination of factors, such as the under-ordering of vaccine on the one hand, and possibly vaccination of 'worried well' on the other hand. It seems likely that awareness may also be higher this year due in part to the very high level of media interest in the threat of avian flu in birds and of pandemic flu. We do not expect seasonal flu vaccine to protect against avian influenza or against pandemic influenza. However, it is important to remember that seasonal flu vaccine is important for those aged 65 years and over, and the clinical risk groups, and high uptake level in these groups is to be welcomed.
	"We need to ensure now that GPs prioritise their remaining stocks of flu vaccine to those who will really benefit from the vaccine—those aged 65 years and over, and the clinical risk groups. Officials wrote to influenza immunisation co-ordinators to this effect yesterday.
	"The department is helping GPs by releasing flu vaccine from the contingency stock that we have purchased. We have taken orders against this stock, and deliveries are being made and will continue into December. In the face of exceptionally high global demand for flu vaccine, the department has been able to secure an additional 200,000 doses of flu vaccine, despite the intense global demand for vaccine—that will be delivered in January. We are also discussing with manufacturers whether additional supplies can be made available over and above the 200,000 doses and, if so, when these stocks would be available.
	"In previous years, the GP-led arrangement that I have described has, on the whole, worked well. In view of what has happened this year, however, I am reviewing the arrangements currently in place for the seasonal flu vaccination programme and will consider this matter urgently".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is certainly a worrying state of affairs. I appreciate the sense of urgency in the tone of the Statement but the Minister will understand that a number of important questions are begged by it. First, what has happened to the 14 million doses that have been manufactured? It is suggested that vaccines may have been under-ordered or that supplies may have been used on non-priority groups. There are at least three more possibilities, which are that some vaccine may have been ordered but not yet delivered; or that the take-up among high-risk groups has been greater than predicted; or that appreciable stocks are still being held unused at a number of GP practices. If the last of those is true, will the department please encourage GPs to share around any surplus stocks with neighbouring practices who find themselves short?
	I do not think that it is wholly fair for the Government to blame doctors for over-prescribing. I am not aware of any evidence to that effect, and indeed the deputy chair of the BMA's GP committee and the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners have strongly repudiated that suggestion. If it has happened, whose fault is it? During all the publicity in October about a possible pandemic of avian flu, I do not remember any statements being made by the department to make it absolutely clear to the public that the winter flu vaccine would not be effective against a strain of pandemic flu derived from avian flu. If statements were made, they were not sufficiently loud and clear.
	One does have to wonder what would happen if a pandemic of avian flu were to occur, because the flu pandemic contingency plan explicitly recognises that,
	"Effective communications provide the backbone for an effective and co-ordinated response".
	The confident statements of Ministers as recently as 24 October about the adequacy of vaccine supplies for winter flu do not suggest that communications are as effective or as timely as they should be.
	I welcome the 200,000 additional doses that the Government have secured, but the largest flu vaccine manufacturer, sanofi-aventis told the Government on 21 October that it had already distributed all its reserve stock. Why did it take until now for the Government to order a further supply, which we understand will not be available until late January? If it does not arrive until then, there must be a strong possibility that many people in at-risk groups will remain unvaccinated.
	Can the Minister confirm one part of the Statement? He said that the production of 14 million doses this year was more than ever before. But was it in fact more than last year? The noble Lord himself told this House on 26 October 2004 that there were,
	"around 14 million doses of flu vaccine available for this year".—[Official Report, 26/10/04; col. 1173.]
	But since then two additional groups have been added to the routine flu immunisation programme—people with chronic liver disease and people who are the main carer for an elderly or disabled person. Were those two groups fully factored into the Government's calculations?
	We need to know a number of things as soon as possible. What percentage of the at-risk groups remains unimmunised? Why has it apparently taken so long for the Government to acknowledge that there is a problem and to place an order for further stocks? What is the evidence for the suggestion that GPs have been inappropriately administering flu vaccines, which has never been reported in the past? And how can we—and for that matter Ministers—be more confident in the future that timely, up-to-date information is available on matters such as these, which have enormous implications for public health?

Baroness Barker: My Lords, in August 2005, the department issued the UK operational framework for stockpiling, distributing and using antiviral medicines in the event of pandemic influenza, which received a lot of coverage at the time in the newspapers. On 17 October this year, coming to the end of a Statement about pandemic flu, the Minister said:
	"Nevertheless, it is very important for protection against seasonal flu that people aged over 65 and other at-risk groups recommended to have the vaccination should make sure that they receive their vaccinations as normal".—[Official Report, 17/10/05; col. 567.]
	Does the Minister agree that what has happened since then is that people have heeded his warning? In the past year, 70 per cent of people in at-risk groups took up the offer of a flu jab. This year, given that people have been hearing about flu all through the summer and have been exhorted to be vaccinated, they have done just that. Was it not possible to predict back in the summer that the take-up rates would be greater than in previous years? After all, we know that every year 10,000 people in high-risk groups die during the winter of cold and flu-related illnesses. Our present situation is not exactly surprising.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the inclusion of carers in the key groups. The Minister will know that that is something that I have advocated for some time. It makes sense when trying to combat outbreaks. I believe that other key workers such as NHS and emergency services staff also have been included. Indeed, this afternoon a number of GPs have taken to the airwaves to explain that they have used their common sense to ensure that those emergency workers have been deliberately targeted to receive the small stocks that that those GPs have. They see that not as profligate but as a sensible way to manage the position they are in.
	Does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that the vaccines are ordered by GP practices whose margins are extremely tight? A GP practice that over-orders only a small amount of vaccine is unable to recoup the money that it has spent, which makes a great difference to its overall budget for vaccinations throughout the year.
	I have two final questions. First, in view of what we now know about the deficiency in stocks for December and January, and given the weather forecasts, will the Government support a range of winter warmth and anti-hypothermia initiatives for at-risk groups? Secondly, at a time when they face severe difficulties due to reorganisation, will the Minister ensure that PCTs rapidly co-ordinate the practice groups in their areas? It is imperative that the shortage of vaccines is dealt with now if people in vulnerable groups who are not yet vaccinated are not to be left out and the number of winter deaths is not to rise.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I have been asked a number of questions to which I shall respond as best I can. There are two issues relating to vaccine production: the figure which the Government give the industry as their estimate of the numbers in priority groups who would need vaccine; and the figure which it subsequently turns out that the industry produced at the end of the period in question. The figure which I have for vaccine production for the winter of 2004–05 is 12.3 million. The figure that we gave the industry at the beginning of this year for this winter was about 14 million, as I have indicated. By definition, we will not know until the end of the winter how many vaccinations have actually been administered. It is worth bearing in mind that in the past GPs have tended to vaccinate in November; but, looking at the figures we have for the end of October, there does not seem to have been a significant change in the coverage of at-risk groups. There is nothing to suggest that there has been a dramatic change in the rate of vaccination.
	We know that all ordered vaccines have been delivered, and that is down to the judgment of GPs. It is not a question of me blaming GPs; the truth of the matter is that GPs have registered lists of people and they know from those lists which patients at their surgeries are aged 65 and over and which patients are at risk. They are best placed to make judgments about the amount of vaccine to order, and that system has been in place for a long time—certainly preceding this Government. It is worth bearing in mind that in 1996–97 vaccine production was 6.1 million doses, so over the past decade there has been a substantial expansion of vaccine production and usage in this country.
	I turn to some of the other issues raised. We first ordered a tranche of extra vaccine at the beginning of November and, at the same time, we put in place a national audit of suppliers. It is worth bearing in mind that you cannot just turn on seasonal flu vaccine. We give the judgment about the risk groups and the numbers involved to the manufacturers at the beginning of the year so that they can prepare the appropriate vaccine in the summer for the coming winter's flu strain. Once we are into that winter, the ability dramatically to expand production globally is very restricted. We are now hunting around the world for supplies of vaccine, but we cannot dramatically expand the number of dosages beyond 14 million because the manufacturers will have limited the vaccine that they are producing for a given winter to an amount appropriate for the strains.
	The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to pandemic plans. The system used for seasonal vaccination is fundamentally different from that for pandemics. The pandemic plans for antivirals and vaccines are based on central purchase and distribution. They are not GP-based, and so a totally different system is in place in that regard. I reiterate our confidence in the contingency plans for a pandemic and I remind the noble Earl that our level of preparedness was well supported by the World Health Organisation.
	The other points raised relate to over-ordering. GPs do not have sale-or-return arrangements for excess stock. We expect them to make judgments on the basis of the information they have on their lists about priority groups and to order accordingly. Our letter yesterday specifically asked GPs to move vaccines between one another if they had stocks which they did not need. So we have asked people to share in these circumstances, and the flu co-ordinators, whom I mentioned in my Statement, can facilitate that at the local level.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised the subject of hypothermia. A substantial number of measures are already in place for keeping warm in winter and, again, we are having a campaign on the issue in the current year. We will continue to do the best that we can at the local level through the NHS and social services to ensure that people are well informed about what they can do to guard against extreme cold.

Baroness Tonge: My Lords, is the Minister able to assess how much flu vaccine is left in the private sector and in the drop-in centres? Approximately how much does it cost to have a flu jab at those centres, and are GPs directing patients to them if they feel that they should have the vaccine but do not have any themselves?

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I think the noble Baroness knows, there is a fee payment for GPs vaccinating the at-risk groups. I do not know whether they are referring to other sources of vaccine. It is more likely that they would seek to obtain supplies of vaccine to vaccinate their own at-risk groups within their own practice. As I said earlier, we have reminded them of the importance of sharing. We have flu co-ordinators at the PCT level who are expected to facilitate those kinds of arrangements.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	Clause 15 [Penalty points]:
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
	Clause 16 [Speed assessment equipment detection devices]:
	[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
	Clause 17 [Exemptions from speed limits]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 22, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—
	"(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply unless the vehicle is being driven by a person who—
	(a) has satisfactorily completed a course of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed provided in accordance with regulations under this section, or
	(b) is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about courses of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed.
	(4) The regulations may include—
	(a) provision about the nature of courses,
	(b) provision for the approval by the Secretary of State of persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses and the withdrawal of approvals (including provision for appeals against refusal and withdrawal of approvals),
	(c) provision specifying the maximum fees that a person may be required to pay for a course,
	(d) provision for the training or assessment, or the supervision of the training or assessment, of persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses,
	(e) provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of courses,
	(f) provision authorising the Secretary of State to make available information about persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses, and
	(g) provision treating courses of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed which have been completed before the coming into force of the regulations as if they had been provided in accordance with the regulations.
	(5) The regulations may include provision for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of any function conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by the regulations.
	(6) The regulations may make different provision—
	(a) for different classes of vehicle,
	(b) for different descriptions of persons, or
	(c) otherwise for different circumstances.""

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this amendment slightly earlier than the House might have imagined. I am therefore superbly well equipped for the amendments of both the noble Earls, Lord Dundee and Lord Attlee, but less well equipped for the amendment of the Lord Davies of Oldham.
	The amendment is a minor affair, acknowledging the great difficulties we have had with certain issues in the Bill thus far. Consequently, I am moving it as a formal government amendment because it is merely technical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 19:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"CAUSING DEATH BY CARELESS, OR INCONSIDERATE, DRIVING
	(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 2A insert—
	"2B CAUSING DEATH BY CARELESS, OR INCONSIDERATE, DRIVING
	A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence."
	(2) In section 24(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (alternative verdicts), in the Table—
	(a) in the entry relating to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (causing death by dangerous driving), in the second column, after "Section 2 (dangerous driving)" insert "Section 2B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving)",
	(b) after the entry relating to section 2 of that Act insert—
	
		
			  
			  "Section 2B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving) Section 3 (careless, and inconsiderate, driving)", 
		
	
	(c) in the entry relating to section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs), in the second column, before "Section 3 (careless, and inconsiderate, driving)" insert "Section 2B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving)".
	(3) In Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (offences to which certain sections apply), after the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			  
			 "RTA section 2B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving. Sections 11 and 12(1) of this Act." 
		
	
	(4) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			  
			 "RTA section 2B Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving. (a)   Summarilly (a)   12 months(in England and Wales) or 6 months (in Scotland) or the statutory maximum or both. Obligatory. Obligatory. 3–11" 
			   (b) On indictment (b) 5 years or a fine or both. 
		
	
	(5) In sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 17(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13) (informing coroners)—
	(a) after "1" insert ", 2B", and
	(b) after "dangerous driving" insert ", careless driving".
	(6) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c. 32) (offences where notice must be given to authority of State in which offender is normally resident), after paragraph (b) insert—
	"(ba) section 2B (causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving),"."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I come to an important part of the Bill which concerns speed limits and sentencing policy. The Home Office has, of course, a direct interest in this part of the Bill, and I was therefore looking with unsurpassed joy to the fact that my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton would be moving this amendment, while I would be able to give him the fullest moral support from the Bench. Regrettably, it falls to me to fulfil a rather more significant role on Amendment No. 19, and I take great pleasure in moving it.
	The amendment is the first in a series that takes forward some long-awaited measures arising from the review of road traffic offences involving bad driving, a consultation exercise which ran from February to May this year. Of all the issues that we have been concerned about in the Bill, this is probably the one which has exercised the minds of noble Lords most energetically as being of absolutely central significance to the Bill.
	The Government believe that it is vital to ensure that criminal law is fully effective in addressing bad driving and its all-too-often appalling consequences. These amendments will ensure that the offences and penalties available in cases of bad driving are sufficient in order to take into account the consequences of bad driving, as well as the offender's culpability. I would be extraordinarily na-ve if I did not recognise that this was a difficult and contentious issue. The Government are firmly of the opinion, however, that we need to address this issue, and particularly the effects of bad driving, in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 19 creates a new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. It sets out the penalties for the offence and to which offences this would be available as an alternative verdict.
	Amendment No. 29, which I will turn to in a moment, sets out in statute what is meant by careless or inconsiderate driving.
	The offence of causing death by careless driving was originally proposed in the 1999 House of Commons Transport Committee's report Traffic Law and its Enforcement. At present, causing death by dangerous driving is rightly considered a serious crime, and the Government have already increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, or causing death by careless driving while under the influences of alcohol or drugs, to 14 years' imprisonment. However, many people have argued that where the standard of driving is not categorised as dangerous, by that I mean that it is careless, and a death results, the law is inadequate.
	What is the difference between "careless" and "dangerous" driving? It might be helpful if I turn to government Amendment No. 29, as it sets out what is meant by careless driving. Careless driving is currently defined in Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which I shall from now on refer to as the RTA, as driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or another public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other users of the road or place. However, unlike the concept of dangerous driving, which is further defined in the statute as driving that falls "far below" the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, careless driving is not further defined. It is widely regarded, and there is case law to the effect, that careless driving is driving that falls "below" the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, but, for completeness and clarity, the consultation proposes that this needs to be set out in statute. That is done in subsections (2) and (3) of the Section 3ZA offence.
	Furthermore, subsection (4) of the amendment defines inconsiderate driving as being driving that inconveniences another person. Government Amendment No. 29 does not alter in any way the definition of careless driving that has been established in case law, or indeed the definition of inconsiderate driving; it merely sets out those definitions in statute.
	Amendment No. 29A would change that definition so that careless driving would only cover driving that falls substantially below that expected of a competent and careful driver.
	As I have set out, where driving falls far below the expected standard, the offence of dangerous driving would be the appropriate charge.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, but he has just put in an extra word.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, it would be of help to your Lordships if this were to be put to the House before we start a debate on it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise to the Deputy Speaker and to the noble and learned Lord. He will have his chance to speak, I have no doubt. I was saying that where driving falls far below the expected standard, the offence of dangerous driving would be the appropriate charge. It is not clear how driving which falls substantially below what would be expected of the careful and competent driver would be distinguishable from driving which falls far below. In that sense, the noble Lord's amendment makes causing death by careless driving virtually identical to causing death by dangerous driving, thus doubling up what is already on the statute book.
	I do, however, recognise the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment. He is no doubt concerned that minor errors could be covered by the existing definition of careless driving and therefore covered by the new offence contained in Amendment No. 19. It is of course true that minor errors can be careless and therefore would be covered by this offence. However, it is worth bearing in mind that bad driving is a question of degree. Careless driving ranges from minor errors to driving that is on the cusp of being dangerous. It is the latter that would be likely to attract a custodial sentence where a death is caused. I shall return to the sentence for the offence in a moment.
	The issue of what driving behaviour should be covered by the offence of careless driving was considered prior to the consultation paper being published. When conducting the review of road traffic offences, the Government considered whether there should be an intermediate offence to cover the more serious types of careless driving, but the review process concluded that that would have been difficult to define and unnecessarily complex. Instead, we decided that it was better to rely on the judgment of the courts in view of the circumstances in each case. The meaning of careless driving is well established and there is no evidence that it is insufficient. Indeed, many respondents to the consultation felt that established case law definitions should be set out in statute, and that is what we have done. For those reasons, we will resist Amendment No. 19A.
	So careless driving is driving that falls below, but not far below, the standard of a competent and careful driver. Turning again to government Amendment No. 19, at present, careless driving is punishable by a maximum fine of £2,500. Elsewhere in the Bill, that will be raised to £5,000 and may also be subject to community penalties. At present, a custodial sentence is not available, regardless of the consequences of that offence. That is because careless driving can apply to quite minor errors, although sometimes it may approach dangerous driving. There is no requirement that there be an obvious risk of injury or damage.
	Some people argue that the consequences of the driving should not be an element of the offence—that only the standard of the driving should be assessed, not the possible tragic results. To some extent, I accept that. It is certainly true that the standard of driving must be the most important factor in judging culpability. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that we strike a balance between the level of criminal fault on the part of the careless driver and the devastation that can be caused. Drivers have a responsibility to other road users and we need to consider that when we strike that balance. That is why the consultation paper on bad driving offences proposed a new offence of causing death by careless driving with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
	There were strongly held views both for and against the principle of that offence and I expect that those views will be aired during our debate. The proposal was strongly supported by the general public and by road safety organisations. However, it will be known that, on the whole, the legal profession was not in favour. We have of course considered that carefully, but have concluded that the offence is necessary. It will, for the first time, allow the fatal consequences of careless driving to be reflected in the charge, even when no alcohol or drugs are involved, and will make available a custodial sentence. It will reflect the fact that a proportion of cases will be on the borderline between careless and dangerous driving. Most importantly, it will mean that the families of those killed by careless drivers feel that the law is adequate to deal with the circumstances and that the justice system is on their side so that, if, in all circumstances, a court feels that custody is appropriate, it will be available.
	Of course, there will be instances—probably the majority—where custody is not considered to be the most appropriate penalty. The amendment merely ensures that custody is an option for the courts and allows the fact that the death to be recognised in the offence. That itself is an important acknowledgement of the tragedy that has happened to the families of victims of road accidents. Amendment No. 19C would reduce the maximum penalty available for the offence to three years imprisonment. As I said, the Government, have considered the principle of the offence carefully. We have also considered whether five years is the appropriate maximum penalty for such an offence. Most respondents to the consultation thought that it was. They thought that that penalty balances the offender's culpability, on the one hand, with the need to ensure that the offences and penalties available in cases of bad driving are sufficient to take account of the consequences. As I said, five years will be the maximum penalty available and will be used only where the courts were satisfied that it was necessary.
	In response to concerns raised by the Justices Clerks' Society, the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates in their consultation responses, the Government have decided that the offence should be triable either way. That will help to reassure those who are concerned about the offence that cases that remain suitable for trial in the magistrates' court will continue to be heard there. Where they are, 12 months will be the maximum available penalty in England and Wales; six months in Scotland. The offence is not designed to ensure that anyone committing it receives the five-year maximum penalty. The Government recognise that drivers do not generally set out to be careless and are often devastated to think that they have killed someone through their bad driving. The offence is designed to untie the court's hands, so that if the court thinks that a custodial penalty is warranted, it can impose one.
	Amendment No. 19 also provides that the new offence of causing death by careless driving can be an alternative verdict where a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving or for causing death while under the influence of drink or drugs has failed. That will ensure that bad drivers do not escape justice altogether.
	I turn to government Amendment No. 20, which also advances a proposal contained in the consultation paper on bad driving offences. It creates a new offence where the person causes death and is at the same time driving while unlicensed, disqualified or without insurance. Drivers who bring a car onto the road illegally the public at risk. At present, if a disqualified driver causes an incident in which a person is killed, he could be prosecuted only for driving while disqualified, which attracts a low custodial sentence. Unless his driving is careless or dangerous, no more serious charge is available than that. Similarly, where the driver is driving without a licence or without insurance and kills, he can be prosecuted only with the offences of driving without insurance or without a licence, which are punishable only by fines.
	We have listened to the families of victims killed by illegal drivers. They are understandably concerned that an offender can walk away with a fine for killing a person when they should not have been on the road in the first place. If a driver does not have a licence, he presents a risk. Where that risk materialises, the offence goes beyond unlicensed driving and the Government strongly believe that deaths should be recognised. So this offence reflects the fact that the driver should not have been on the road in the first place. It is entirely proper that those who deliberately flout the law in that manner should be held culpable for any fatal consequences that arise from their decision to drive.
	An example of how that offence might be used would be where a child runs in front of a vehicle and is killed by a driver whose driving is of an acceptable standard. Where that driver is disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured, the Government believe that a more severe punishment should be available than at present. It is true that that is not strictly a case of bad driving, in that disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured drivers may be driving at the required standard, but I believe, as did many respondents to the consultation exercise, that the act of taking a vehicle on the road when disqualified or unlicensed shows a disregard for the safety of others that is not dissimilar to that disregard that may be shown by those who drive below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver.
	A two-year maximum penalty for that offence, which is lower than that originally suggested in the consultation exercise, will recognise the fact that the driver has placed other road users at unacceptable risk, and that risk has materialised, but balances that with the fact that the standard of driving need not have been below that of the careful and competent driver.
	Both government Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 provide that any person found guilty of those offences will be disqualified and have his licence endorsed as is consistent with other bad driving offences. As a general rule, where a person is convicted of an offence that is subject to obligatory disqualification, the court must impose a disqualification of not less than 12 months, unless there are special reasons to do otherwise. That is the effect of Section 34(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. However, Section 34(4) of that Act provides that in relation to manslaughter—or culpable homicide in Scotland—causing death by dangerous driving, and causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence, the minimum period of disqualification shall be two years.
	Amendment No. 19A makes the new offence of causing death by careless driving subject to a minimum disqualification period of two years. The new offence is not as serious as the three offences that attract a minimum disqualification period of two years. Those three offences are subject to a very high custodial sentence—up to 14 years in the case of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving while under the influence, and life imprisonment for manslaughter or culpable homicide. The new offence attracts a maximum custodial sentence of five years. For that reason, it should not be included in the small group of very serious offences for which the minimum period of disqualification is two years rather than 12 months.
	If, for special reasons, a court opts not to disqualify an offender, government Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 set out the range of penalty points that may be awarded. It has been set between three and 11, which is consistent with other offences that attract mandatory disqualification; for example, causing death by dangerous driving or causing death while under the influence. Amendments Nos. 19B and 20A would change that range in relation to the new offences proposed here so that the minimum number of penalty points that could be awarded for those offences would be eight.
	I have set out how those offences should fit within the bad driving framework of offences. All road traffic offences subject to obligatory disqualification attract a range of three to 11 penalty points to be applied where, for special reasons, the court opts not to disqualify. The proposed amendment, aside from putting the new offence out of step with all the others, would present a real practical difficulty. Where the person already had points on his licence, imposing eight or more further penalty points may well take the total to 12 or more, thus resulting in disqualification. The three to 11 range is designed to enable courts, for special reasons, to add points to a licence rather than to disqualify. The amendment would substantially reduce that possibility, in that it would be an option only where the individual concerned had three points or fewer on his licence. An example of a situation that might be regarded as a special reason for not disqualifying is where a car was driven carelessly in a medical emergency. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who takes a very keen interest in those issues, would not want the courts to be limited in their power to deal sympathetically with those kinds of situations, but that would be the effect of his amendment. He will recognise, therefore, why I oppose Amendments Nos. 19A and 20B.
	Neither of the proposed offences includes injury. That issue was considered in the consultation paper on bad driving offences. The Government have decided not to include injury in the scope of the offences. It was discussed at a previous stage and is raised in Amendment No. 63, to which I shall now speak.
	Amendment No. 63 would add injury to the offence under Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act so that it would be an offence to cause death or injury by dangerous driving. That would be punishable by a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment. The question whether injury should be treated in the same way as death in bad driving offences is a longstanding issue on which, I recognise, there are differing views both in this House and in wider society. The case put forward in support of including injury in bad driving offences is that whether death results from a piece of bad driving can be a matter of chance. As all noble Lords are aware, there is an offence of causing grievous injury by dangerous driving in Northern Ireland but there is no such offence in Great Britain. Where injury occurs, that is reflected as appropriate in sentencing. The issue was examined during the review of road traffic offences consultation exercise but was not put forward as a proposal as the Government do not favour making consequences other than death an element of bad driving offences. Instead, we propose that sentencers should be under a statutory duty to take injuries into account when sentencing.
	This proposal received a mixed response. Road safety organisations and some members of the public supported the idea. However, the legal profession did not think that it was necessary as injuries are already relevant to sentence. The responses also made clear that death is considered a special case. Indeed, this is reflected in the current road traffic framework, which provides for much higher sentences where a death occurs and a driver is driving dangerously, has stolen a car or kills and is under the influence of drink or drugs. That will be extended by the proposed new offences in government Amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
	If we agree that, in relation to dangerous driving, causing injury should be treated as similar to causing death, then logically we should agree to extend that principle to other bad driving offences such as causing death while under the influence or aggravated vehicle taking. Those are serious offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years. We think that that penalty is right where death has occurred because a driver has taken a risk, that risk has materialised and a person has lost their life because of it. We think that it is right that the death is recognised both in the charge and in the sentence available but we do not agree that that should be the case where injury is caused. We agree with the responses to the consultation exercise that death is a special case and that injury should be reflected in the sentence rather than in a specific charge.
	The Government propose that it would be better to build on current practice and to work with the Sentencing Guidelines Council in England and Wales and the Sentencing Commission for Scotland to support them in producing guidelines that require sentencers to take appropriate account of those factors in sentencing.
	I hope, therefore, that the House will support government Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 29. I believe that they set the right balance between the culpability of the offender and ensuring that the courts have the powers to sentence appropriately. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments. I apologise for speaking at such great length but this is a very important part of the Bill. It is our response both to representations from outside this House and to our discussions in Committee. On that basis, I beg to move.

Lord Monson: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 19, Amendment No. 19A:
	Line 8, at end insert—
	"2C CAUSING DEATH BY CARELESS, OR INCONSIDERATE, DRIVING: DISQUALIFICATION
	Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court must order him to be disqualified for such period not less than two years as the court thinks fit unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified.""

Lord Monson: My Lords, this is a very large group of amendments. Apart from one very minor point of detail, I have no quarrel with Amendment No. 20, which deals with deliberate offences, committed in the full knowledge that they are illegal. However, Amendment No. 19 is clearly extremely controversial, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, rightly conceded. If that were not the case, its provisions would have been passed into law decades ago. After all, the problems that it purports to address are not getting worse, like anti-social behaviour or gun crime; on the contrary, they are either static or declining slightly. Fatalities per million vehicle miles are well under one-tenth of what they were 40 or 50 years ago. Although one should never be complacent, it is worth noting that we have almost the lowest road fatality rate in the world.
	What has changed is public sentiment. Forty or 50 years ago when a road fatality took place, people would say, "How very sad, how tragic, but accidents will happen". Nowadays, people—at any rate, the younger generation—refuse to accept that accidents will happen. They maintain that almost all accidents are avoidable and that anyone responsible for a fatal one should have the book thrown at them, whether they be a motorist, a hospital doctor, a nurse, a railway signalman, an air traffic controller or anyone else who is deemed to be responsible for a death. Objectively, one can see many philosophical and practical flaws in this attitude. However, subjectively, one cannot help but sympathise enormously with the family and friends of the victim, which is why I have been in favour—certainly, since our very lengthy consideration of the Road Traffic Bill in 1988 in which I took a fairly active part—of some modest change in the law, as I indicated in Committee, with the accent on the word "modest".
	Unfortunately, the change that the Government propose is very far from modest. I wonder how many noble Lords realise that the maximum sentence proposed today for causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving is exactly the same as that stipulated in the 1988 Act, which received Royal Assent 17 years ago last week, for causing death by dangerous or reckless driving. Monetary inflation in this country is thankfully down to below 2.5 per cent per annum, but what one might term "maximum sentence" inflation has been running at about 7 per cent per annum compound, certainly where death by dangerous driving is concerned: the maximum sentence has gone up by almost by three times in something like 16 years.
	The ostensible reason for what is now proposed is to eliminate careless driving and thereby save lives. By and large, it will not achieve this objective, although, obviously, if even a handful of lives are saved that is to be applauded. It will not achieve this because as long as the human race exists human errors will occur. But the largely unspoken reason for the amendment is to give the public and the tabloid press what they have asked for. In this, the Government may be successful—in the short term at any rate.
	However, unless the maximum sentence of five years is reduced, there will be two unintended consequences. If the maximum remains at five years, the public and the tabloid press will understandably expect everyone who is convicted of this new offence to be sent to prison for at least three or four years where careless driving verges on the reckless and for between 12 and 18 months in other cases. There will be outrage in the press if only non-custodial sentences are imposed.
	In consequence, not only irresponsible yobs like boy-racers will go to prison—there will be a few of those, of course—but also considerable numbers of students, young mothers with small children, hard-working heads of families, little old ladies and drivers of HGVs whose vehicles "inconsiderately" spray mud and slush over the windscreens of cars causing the latter to crash and kill someone. We know this because an increase in the prison population is anticipated: one of the reasons that this amendment is so late in reaching your Lordships—it is late to bring it in at Report stage—is that the Treasury was apparently unhappy about having to find the funding for extra prison places.
	The second unintended consequence is that jurors will very soon become reluctant to convict, realising that "there but for the grace of God go I". However, if the maximum sentence is reduced to two years—or three years as I propose in Amendment No. 19C—it will be tacitly understood that prison will be reserved for those whose careless driving verges on the reckless, with almost all others receiving fines, possibly community service—perhaps in an accident and emergency ward—and of course disqualification.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned, in Amendment No. 19A I have proposed raising the minimum discretionary period from one to two years, as with the assistance of Back-Benchers of all parties and none I was able to do in 1988, for dangerous driving. I firmly believe that if the family and friends of victims are satisfied that the guilty party is to be kept off the road for a period they will not be so vocal in calling for a prison sentence to be imposed.
	Reverting to imprisonment, I favour a two-year maximum sentence, but I calculated that I might get more support from various quarters of the House if I made it three years. A three-year maximum is not habitual, but there is certainly plenty of precedent for it. I have discovered at least seven offences that were created between 1959 and 1986 inclusive in which a three-year maximum sentence features.
	Amendments Nos. 19B and 20A are essentially probing amendments dealing with the number of penalty points. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, explained these to my satisfaction. I find it hard to believe that the Government would want offences as serious as this to attract potentially a mere three penalty points, but, none the less, in view of the time that we have available, I am prepared to not go any further with them
	My Amendment No. 29A is important. I listened very carefully naturally to what the Minister said, but there cannot be a single driver with more than 100,000 miles under his or her belt who has not from time to time found that their normal driving standards have lapsed for one reason or another. This amendment is designed to acknowledge human imperfection. However, again, I am not prepared to go much further on that unless I get support from other parts of the House.
	The noble Lord said that the Government have consulted a number of organisations on what they propose and that the legal profession is not very happy about it. I take it that they have consulted the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Lord Chief Justice and the Magistrates' Association, as well as ACPO and the motoring organisations. No doubt the noble Lord will verify that. If such consultations have taken place in the three weeks since the Government's precise intentions became known, were those organisations entirely in favour? Obviously, some of them are not. Did they disagree in whole or in part? Could we have more detail on what they disagreed with? Was it the maximum sentence, for example?
	Since, unfortunately, this new offence comes to us via not a Bill but a Report stage amendment no explanatory notes are provided, as would be normal. So, first, we are not told of the financial effects of the amendment; secondly, we are not told of its effects on public service manpower; and, thirdly, we are not told of the regulatory impact assessment stemming from the amendment. All of that would normally be in the Explanatory Notes.
	Amendment No. 19C is the really important amendment, which reduces the maximum sentence. I fear that if it is not reduced, things will not go as benignly as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggests. Many more people will be sent to prison than the Government anticipate. But convention demands that at this point I move Amendment No. 19A. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise for returning to the Chamber late. I strongly oppose Amendments Nos. 19 and 29, but I have no problem with Amendment No. 20 because, as noble Lords have identified, there is a criminal intent when the motorist starts driving without insurance. However, I do not blame the Minister. He is not in control. I do not think that anyone is in control of the Home Office. I am sure that if the Minister had intended these provisions to be in the Bill he would have had them in at Second Reading. Even if it was not his intention, he would have tabled an amendment for Committee stage. The work of the Home Office is clear for all to see.
	The problem is that your Lordships have worked on the Bill on the basis that no significant changes would be made to the two most important bad driving offences; namely, careless driving and dangerous driving. I doubt whether many noble Lords have spent much time studying them. I certainly have not. It is clear that the Home Office has responded to pressures from the road safety lobby and the public, but one wonders how members of the public will react when they find that their best friend, an upstanding member of society, has had a ghastly accident and now finds himself being prosecuted for a very serious offence. While on the issue of public opinion, we should remember that public opinion supports hanging, but I suspect that few in your Lordships' House would support its reintroduction.
	The difficulty is that many of those involved in these organisations have suffered personal tragedy. First, they want to reduce the chance of tragedy occurring to someone else, which is laudable. Secondly, however, they want to see someone else pay, and pay dearly. In fact, they want to see them go to prison, even for a minor transgression. But I do not want to belittle the efforts of the road safety lobby. If it were not for those efforts, we probably would not have the Bill at all.
	While we all understand the mischief that it is very hard to secure a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving, it is quite easy to do so for careless driving—even, or perhaps especially, in the case of a fatality. But I can think of no activity outside of Her Majesty's Armed Forces where ordinary people, through a moment's inattention, can cause a fatal accident. In a factory, a process that results in fatal consequences because of a minor omission or slight error of judgment would simply not be tolerated. The HSE would impose an immediate prohibition on that process.
	Noble Lords may not realise what a big change the Minister's amendment will make. To secure a conviction for dangerous driving, whether for a fatal accident or not, under Section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by the 1991 Act, the prosecution has to show that the person's driving was far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and—this is most important—that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. That test does not apply to the offence of careless driving. If this test could be applied to the new offence, it might go some way towards alleviating our concerns.
	We are going to create a very serious offence which would attract penalties similar to a serious assault; that is, imprisonment for up to five years, an unlimited fine and obligatory disqualification. But the failure would be merely to have driven without due care and attention. There would be no need to prove a guilty or negligent intent. In most criminal law, sentences take into account the consequences of the offence. However, in those cases the offender starts out with a criminal intent. Motorists do not normally do so. The mother taking her children to school does not intend to commit a criminal act. That is rather different from the person driving an uninsured vehicle who then kills someone, a point covered by government Amendment No. 20, to which I think most noble Lords will agree. But the mother may make a simple error by failing to check her mirror at the right moment. In emerging from a side road she looks to the right, but does not see the motorcycle. Perhaps it is dark and the motorcycle headlight is exactly superimposed on to the headlight of an oncoming vehicle, but of course the motorcycle is much closer. I have made precisely that mistake myself on a straight road. Fortunately no accident took place, but I did have an interesting discussion with the police motorcyclist involved. Humble pie tastes delicious. Going back to the mother taking her children to school, perhaps she does unfortunately cause the death of a motorcyclist. Of course she would be devastated. And maybe some 10 months earlier she ran into the back of a police car, so that she has already acquired a conviction for careless driving. For how long is it proposed to send her to prison?
	There are other difficulties here which have been identified by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The jury might be extremely reluctant to convict while the defendant would certainly fight the charge very hard indeed, and not only because of the penalties. Although the Minister said that the sentence might not be that severe in a minor case, the defendant would still be convicted of causing death by careless driving. No one would want to bear that stigma. Perhaps they would be willing to accept that they had caused a fatal accident and therefore would accept the charge of careless driving rather than resist the charge; but causing death by careless driving sounds very serious to me. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, had it right when he used the words, "There but for the grace of God go I". Moreover, in the event of a fatal accident surely it would be inappropriate only to bring a charge of careless driving. If an accident results in a fatality, the charge would have to be that of causing death by careless driving every time.
	What of the youngster on benefits who has committed his first offence? He cannot be fined very much because of his low income. There is a limit on how long he can be given to pay and how much he can pay each week, so the fine will be paltry. The only option left to the court may be a custodial sentence, perhaps suspended. What about the case of one accident where the failure in driving is minor but the consequences are fatal, and another accident where the failure is gross but does not result in a conviction for dangerous driving, nor one for causing death by careless driving because the victim has not died, but has been turned into a paraplegic for the rest of his life?
	These amendments are extremely unwelcome and I hope that the Minister will withdraw them in order to think again. If not, we will have to come back at Third Reading with some attempt to try to mitigate their worst effects.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Earl and I always enjoy following him. I believe that greater recognition is necessary both for victims and their families, and I certainly think that a personal appearance is essential in this type of case. But, like the noble Earl, I am concerned about "intent". It is clear that illegal driving, drink driving, drug driving, dangerous driving and reckless driving are all activities in the context of intent. If I were to return to my one-time occupation as a criminal justice social worker, I would be able to sit down and talk those through with someone. But it is very difficult to talk through the idea of doing anything carelessly and tying it in with intention. So I think that people will be keener to argue the point, resulting in more trials as defendants try to establish that, whatever had happened, there had been no intention.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I have very grave reservations indeed about this amendment and about making causing death by careless driving an imprisonable offence. But first perhaps I can indicate that in no way am I soft on bad driving. Indeed, I congratulate the Government on their campaign against speed. During their eight years the Government have done a great deal to bring home to us the dangers of excessive speed in driving. I support them in that and it has been brought home to me personally—though fortunately not by too many convictions. None the less, the Government are absolutely right about speed. When I was Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and I made it our business to see that causing death by dangerous driving was properly dealt with by the courts through bringing a series of Attorney-General's references before the Court of Appeal. The level of sentences went up markedly during those 10 years. It is quite right that the offence of causing death by dangerous driving should receive a condign penalty.
	However, to create an offence of causing death by careless driving is fundamentally wrong as a matter of justice. The Minister said that nearly all the lawyers who had referred to this—or at least the ones he named—had grave reservations about it, and they are absolutely right. But that is not because we are lawyers. It is because we believe in the importance of justice, as I am sure the Minister does. The difficulty is that I cannot immediately think of any area in our system of justice in which custodial sentences are imposed unless the wrongdoing has been the result of either intent or recklessness.
	We deliberately took the word "recklessness" out of the legislation on bad driving for technical reasons, but as my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have rightly pointed out, there is at present on the statute book a fundamental distinction between dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving and careless driving. In order to be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving—and this bears repetition—Section 2A(1) of the 1988 Act states a person may be guilty of causing death by dangerous driving if:
	"(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
	(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous".
	In other words, you are doing something that you know you ought not to be doing. Whereas with careless driving—and I support Amendment No. 29 because it rightly enacts what is indeed the common law—all that is required is that your driving should fall below that of a normal competent and careful driver. But, by definition, no one sets out to drive carelessly. If they set out to do so, they would be doing something deliberate, whereas it is the very essence of carelessness that it arrives, unfortunately, by accident.
	I fully understand the position of the parents and families of victims—indeed, many in this House will be in that position—but when you are dealing with justice, it is the culpability that must govern and not the consequence, which tragically can be fatal. The amendment would deny the opportunity for the court adequately to indicate the culpability. It is an absolute essential of British justice that the prosecution must prove the case and it must state what case it is seeking to prove. If you bring a case of causing death by dangerous driving, you know exactly what the ingredients are. If there is then an alternative verdict of causing death by careless driving—which relates simply to falling below the normal standards of a competent driver—you do not know how much has been proved. As the Minister said, I suppose you might surmise that it is on the cusp of dangerous driving, but what is the defendant to do? Somehow, in a practical way, he has to try to prove his innocence on the lower part of the charge. Yes, he can be sent to prison for up to 14 years, but that is not very likely unless there are serious aggravating circumstances—in which case he would do well to plead guilty as quickly as possible. The amendment seeks to introduce a five-year prison sentence—and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seeks a three-year prison sentence—but for the vast majority of citizens any prison sentence at all is a very frightening and worrying consequence. We know that we do not set out to do something criminal—if we do, we get what we deserve—but under the amendment a prison sentence can be imposed through pure accident, pure carelessness, and, sadly, we can all be guilty of that. What issue will be dealt with in a causing death by dangerous driving offence when there is going to be an alternative remedy? Or, indeed, what issue will be dealt with if you bring only a case of causing death by careless driving, which carries a sentence of up to five years?
	Let me give the example—and I think that this is one of the matters which worries families—of where you are driving down the kind of road which you find all round London near here, with parked cars down either side. We are now aware—partly as a result of the Government's wise governance in this area—that 30 miles an hour is probably too fast a speed at which to go down that kind of road. But then, by mishap, someone—an elderly person, a young child or just an ordinary person—steps out from between the cars and, because you are going just a little too fast, there is a fatal accident and you have caused death by careless driving. But that brings in the question of causation.
	According to the law books, "causation" is fairly irrelevant as far as causing death by dangerous driving is concerned—the course of conduct is there and the driving falls far below the required standard—and it is only in the rarest of cases that causation could even be argued by the defence. But in careless driving cases there is often a multitude of causes for the death and the court will have to decide that issue. But the defendant may not know clearly what is being alleged against him. Will it be down to the prosecutor to indicate the nuances and what he seeks to prove? We expect it to be down to the proper ingredients of the offence. There has to be clarity and certainty.
	With great respect to the Government and to the consultation processes, I have serious worries about being told what the public believe. The public may be right, but it is very difficult for them to take into account all these matters in relation to consultation. In my view the amendment is a grave error. I am sorry it has been brought forward on Report because it would have genuinely benefited from being teased out in the kind of debate that we would have had at a full Committee stage. I very much hope that the Government will think again about these proposals and not press them.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise to oppose Amendment No. 19. In doing so, I declare an interest as a magistrate, now quite obviously on the supplementary list. The Minister was very fair when he said that he had approached various legal organisations and that they had not signified their universal approval. That is quite right. It is certainly true of the Magistrates' Association, although I cannot speak for or represent that body in any way.
	I oppose the amendment with a heavy heart because nothing is more heartrending than the grief of those who have been devastated by the death of a loved one as a result of an act of folly on our roads. Heaven forbid that any of us should have to go through that. My concern, however, is that the amendment will only raise the hopes of the relatives of those who have so sadly been killed, probably only to see those hopes dashed at a later stage. As we have heard, most though not all drivers who cause death by driving do so as a result of some momentary aberration—tiredness, bad judgment, lack of attention at a critical moment, you name it—and in the vast majority of cases they will live with that folly for the rest of their lives and will remember it every waking moment of the day. Is it appropriate that they should receive a prison sentence as well? What possible good would that do other than to give fleeting satisfaction—and it would only be fleeting—to some relatives and provide another sacrificial lamb on the altar of a tabloid newspaper, as my noble friend Lord Monson so aptly said?
	The existing offence of dangerous driving, which is always said to be notoriously difficult to prove anyway, can and should take care of those few who recklessly and callously gamble with the lives of innocent people, more often than not when they are unlicensed and uninsured. I support Amendment No. 20 and I commend the Government for bringing it forward. It is a step towards recognising the true criminality of some people in this context.
	That is the emotional argument, but there are as well the practical considerations which have been set out, among others, by the Magistrates' Association. The new clause would mean that the consequences of the driving would become the main factor in the assessment of an offence rather than the culpability of the driver, as is the case now. As such an offence will become indictable rather than subject to summary jurisdiction, it will be all Lombard Street to a China orange, to quote an old saying. Defendants will opt for a not guilty plea and trial and take their chance in the Crown Court.
	Past experience has shown that it is often difficult to get a guilty verdict in such cases because the jury, as we have repeatedly heard today, has taken the view, "My goodness, that could be me". The upshot will be that the hopes—or, rather, the expectations—of relatives are likely to be raised, only to be cruelly dashed later. Under such circumstances, the House may well feel, as I do, that community penalties, from which there are many options and combinations to choose, offer a more humane and constructive alternative. I would like us to go down that road when we come to consider this in greater detail.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I was not planning to speak in this debate, but because of my concern about Amendment No. 19 I feel I should say how much I support those who have spoken against it. An accident caused this way is not a deliberate action; it is the consequence of the action of driving. In addition, five years' imprisonment is high on the sentencing tariff.
	I should like to illustrate this by mentioning a case that came before me when I was sitting as a magistrate. It was a dark November evening, a bit murky, and on a main road, coming out of a well lit area, there was an underpass. The cyclist, aged 18, had come underneath the underpass and a van came round an island to go down on to the main road. The driver said, "I just never saw him at all". That was an error of judgment. He was absolutely mortified, and when he came to court, the effect on him was obvious. The young man's parents were in court, and seeing them and talking to them about what had happened would stay with the driver for the rest of his life. It has certainly stayed with me, and made me wonder what good it would have done to imprison him. I bet he is probably the safest driver on the roads today.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I was going to speak in favour of the amendments when my noble friend introduced them. Having heard comments from other noble Lords, I am afraid that I have to congratulate my noble friend even more. I believe that what he is doing is absolutely right.
	We have heard so many stories about momentary errors of judgment that people have to live with for ever. We have heard about poor mothers taking their children to school and youngsters on benefits. We are forgetting the victims, whose relations will suffer and remember this for ever.
	It is possible to drive carefully within the law by concentrating and keeping to the speed limit, and we have a duty of care to do that. I get the impression that a number of noble Lords feel, "There but for the grace of God go I". If this proposal gets people to drive more carefully—and it is not noble Lords who are the main cause of the problem, as we all know—it is a very good thing.
	One noble Lord mentioned the Health and Safety Executive and what would happen in a factory. None of us works in factories, so we would not know. The Health and Safety Executive does a great deal of good in factories; it has also done a great deal of good on the railways. It may have done too much good and spent too much money, but, in general, it has done a great deal of good. I have suggested for a number of years that it should be involved in road safety. If it was, and it applied the same rules to roads as it did to factories, we would all be driving at 20 miles an hour, which would save an awful lot of lives.
	I do not know whether the details of the amendments are right, but the sentiments are right. We must recognise that there is a demand for this, because we are still killing 3,500 people a year and seriously injuring 10 times that number. The amendments are a major contribution to reducing that number, and I shall certainly support them.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I have serious doubts about Amendment No. 19. In order to help me, will the noble Lord give us the Government's estimate of the additional number of years of custodial sentence which will be applicable if the amendment were to be passed? How many people would be likely to be sent to prison for how long? Our prisons are grossly overcrowded; surely the custodial sentence is not the only solution to the problem. It seems to me that a much longer suspension of driving might be almost an equal deterrent to a custodial sentence.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have listened, fascinated, to this debate. I have found myself wondering how it would be if we applied the tests of carelessness set out in Amendment No. 19 to the conduct of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence at times. It would be irrational to do so, and Amendment No. 19 is irrational.
	One of the purposes of law—the noble Lord who just spoke almost touched upon it—is to change people's behaviour away from a criminal act towards behaving lawfully. Would the amendment affect whether somebody was distracted momentarily when they were driving? Would they have it in their mind, "If I were careless tonight, I would face imprisonment"? Would it really be a deterrent?
	What about the Government's programme to reduce the prison population? Would this contribute to that? The amendment is entirely wrongly conceived. People do not wilfully act carelessly. If it was a wilful act, it could be prosecuted under the dangerous driving provisions, and with that we all agree. But there will always be accidents caused by carelessness, and the person who commits that careless act will not be disincentivised, discouraged or inhibited from committing it by this sort of provision. It is simply wrong and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Lyell indicated, it seems to be fundamentally very poor law.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I shall refer specifically to the question of injuries. The Minister said that it was about injuries that the consultation had taken place with various legal officers, the Bar Council and others, not about death by dangerous driving.
	Amendment No. 63 is a probing amendment; we wanted to know where injuries stood in the scale of things. I can accept that there is a very wide variation in degree of injury between people who suffer a cut or a graze and, at the other extreme, somebody who ends up in a vegetative state. I know that the Minister will go away and think about what has been said tonight. I ask him to reconsider whether there is a degree of life-changing injury—if a person ends up minus a limb or in a wheelchair and is permanently injured, for example—that will lead to their case being considered special. I am not talking about trivial injuries.
	On the rest of the amendments, it must now be apparent to the Minister that there is great unease about the custodial element of the punishments proposed for careless driving. I do not consider tiredness, where somebody is dropping asleep, as being careless driving. The person should take a rest. We are told to do that often enough. But where the offence is genuinely a momentary lapse, further consideration should certainly be given to the range of community sentences to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred, because prisons are overcrowded and sending somebody to prison brings in its train all kinds of other problems such as who is to support the prisoner's family and who is to look after his children. It is a devastating situation with which to be confronted. There may be people who go to prison habitually, but the vast majority of us regard it as something with which we would certainly not wish to get involved.
	So when the Minister sums up, will he answer these questions? I shall not press Amendment No. 63. It is simply a probing amendment to discover whether there is any degree of injury which the Minister considers should be included in those things which we have discussed.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this has been one of the most interesting debates that I have heard in this House for a very long time. It has been enormously thoughtful. I hope that the Minister will not push ahead with the amendment today, but provide an opportunity to discuss it further. As has already been said, this is a very late stage in the Bill at which to table an amendment which turns out to be of some magnitude. By the sound of it, some pretty hasty consultation has taken place on the matter externally. This House, by and large, was not expecting it until it saw it in on the Marshalled List. There has not been quite enough time to put it together and to allow us to come to sensible conclusions about it.
	All the points have been extremely well made. The need for a balance between a court having to consider the absolutely disastrous effect on a family of one of its members being killed and the fact that the person who caused it had no intention of doing so has been well stressed. A balance has to be struck in deciding whether that careless moment is of such a magnitude that it should result in a possibility of a custodial sentence, because it would be the last weapon in the armoury of a court. It is one of the options that a court could consider.
	But I am mindful of the fact that a court is required to decide whether its sentence should be a punishment and, in this case, for whom. Should it be punishment on behalf of the victim's family? Should it be punishment for the person who has caused whatever injuries are suffered? Should it be retribution for the common good, to enable people to see that a sentence is a retribution for what has happened and a deterrent? In all those three respects, there are some considerable difficulties with the possibility of a custodial sentence.
	I cannot add anything more to this debate. We on this side of the House want to consider further what the Minister is putting forward. If he intends to proceed with the amendment, I can promise that it will be reviewed at Third Reading by way of further amendment. If the Minister is prepared not to proceed with the amendment today, I think that a number of noble Lords will be very happy to discuss it before it reappears. As Amendment No. 19 stands, it seems to be too controversial. Therefore, I cannot offer the Minister my support on it today.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to this group of amendments. However, Amendment No. 30 is an extension of the offence in Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A police accident investigator who is investigating three fatal accidents involving failure to stop has stated in an e-mail to me:
	"My concern is that s3A takes no account of Failing to Stop fatalities. If you kill someone as a result of driving without due care whilst over the drink drive limit if you evade police until you sober up you can only be done for Without Due Care and Failing to Stop. If you can evade police for six months you've nothing to worry about as the Statutory Time Limit will have passed for summary offences and you'll go scott free.
	"If you had the choice between waiting around for the police to arrest you for an offence carrying 14 years imprisonment and running off with every chance of evading serious punishment, what would you do?
	"Why not a S3B?—Causing Death by WDC and failing to stop".
	I propose that we add the words "failing to stop" as an amendment to Section 3A.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we could have predicted an interesting debate on this group of amendments and that has certainly been the case. I shall limit my reply if only because my opening contribution was of an inordinate length and it attempted to cover as many of the arguments that I could anticipate would be put forward both against the Government's amendments and in favour of those that were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to which other noble Lords have spoken. The House will recognise that this is a serious debate and that while I want to be clear in my answers, I do not want to rehearse all the issues with which I tried to deal in my opening contribution.
	I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, for his comment on the extent of the Government's determination to make our roads safer by making people more aware of appropriate speed limits. I am grateful for his support for the Government in this activity. He will recognise that I quite frankly said in my opening statement that the legal profession largely disagreed with us. He, in his customarily courteous but forceful way, articulated exactly those arguments. I can say only that we have considered them very carefully. Copies of the consultation exercise to which I referred have been placed in the Library of the House and can be examined there, but I made no bones about the fact that anxieties were expressed in many quarters of the law about these proposals during the consultation exercise. But the Government intend to proceed, because, during that exercise, we received very substantial support. This is a road safety Bill and our job is to promote road safety by way of it. The road safety organisations, among others, were very forceful in their support for what we intended to do.
	I might add—I shudder to do so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because it will not be a satisfactory answer to him—that we included this concept in our manifesto only four to five months ago. I have heard it expressed on all sides that we should not be so crudely populist, but there are certain areas of sentencing policy where we do not automatically take the public's view and translate that into law. I of course recognise the age-long debates about the death penalty. We said in our manifesto that we would introduce much tougher penalties for those who cause death by careless driving or who kill while driving without a licence or while disqualified. We are fulfilling that commitment. We have the right to say that we have received substantial public support for this amendment.
	So I concede that I will not persuade the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, with this argument because he articulated an entirely different one about the anxieties of lawyers. We have considered their representations in full and we intend to go ahead because we think that the one argument triumphs over the other.

Lord Lyell of Markyate: My Lords, I confess that I did not have those words from the Labour Party manifesto in my mind, but they do not seem to have been as direct as the wording of the manifesto may have been in other areas. If you talk about much tougher penalties rather than custodial sentences, you are avoiding the key issue. The Minister proposes to raise the fine to £5,000, and I support that; that is a much tougher penalty—it is double the present one, but it is not a custodial sentence. The custodial sentence is contrary to principle in all other areas.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was going to seek to make a concession, and I cannot think of a more appropriate way of doing so than in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, at this juncture. I am going to press the amendment today, and noble Lords will recognise from the arguments that I presented in the opening speech why we are so convinced of the rightness of our cause, despite the fact that we recognise reservations in significant quarters. But I am prepared, and hope that the House will recognise, that we want to press ahead with the government amendment today, but we shall certainly discuss sentencing before Third Reading, and we shall meet on that point. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made that point with considerable force, as did other contributors to the debate; I believe that that was also the burden of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—although I shall not bring any Defence Ministers to that discussion, for the simple reason that they are far too busy and not for any other consideration. We shall meet on that basis; but the noble Lord will recognise that his challenge was a full frontal and properly articulated one to the principle on which I am working with regard to the amendments. I am merely saying that we have right on our side and support from the nation in what we are doing, which will aid road safety. But we will discuss the issue before Third Reading; we shall leave further discussion until then.
	On a number of other issues that were raised, there is inevitably a tendency for people to become anecdotal. We should avoid that—and we must avoid the "hard luck story". After all, the hard luck story would inhibit us from passing laws at all on some aspects of road safety. I imagine that there is no noble Lord who has not at some time shuddered behind the wheel of a car, wondering whether they are breaking the law, whether they are fully in control or whether they are where they should be doing what they ought to be doing at that precise moment. All drivers must experience that situation, but we cannot make law on that basis; we must make law to safeguard the safety of our roads for the people who use them. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, made a very strong case, people who are driving more quickly than they should along a row of parked cars and who hit someone who steps out may be guilty of a very serious driving misdemeanour indeed.
	On the more general issue, when we talk about sentencing, we are talking about enabling and the range that may be applied. We are not saying that in each and every case the maximum sentence will be applied; that would be absolutely absurd. We are saying that the problem at present is that such penalties are not open at all to those who have been found guilty of careless driving—and that is the Government's case. But of course there will be gradations, and of course there will be very limited numbers of people who will fall foul of the offence to the extent that they receive an extensive custodial sentence.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked directly about custodial sentences and their impact. We estimate that we would need an additional 150 prison places a year as a consequence of the numbers who might be caught by these offences. That is not a marginal number. I cannot recall which noble Lord said that the Treasury might have an interest in this matter; in my experience, the Treasury has an interest in every matter with regard to government, so it will have an interest in this matter. But we are talking about 150 prison places a year—we are not talking about measures that would produce a vast blitz on our fellow citizens or put a very large number of them in prison.
	What is the purpose of legislation such as this, apart from punishing the guilty? It is to deter those who might be dangerous or careless. The whole purpose of such legislation is to ensure that we take greater care and that we avoid dangerous driving. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lyell, was kind enough to say, the toughening of our attitude on speeding does condition behaviour; he recognised that as an effect. That is the purpose of the government amendments, and that is why they are included in the Road Safety Bill.
	Some noble Lords said that the Government were acting fearfully late on this matter. We are not late; we discussed the issues and were under pressure in Committee to do something on this matter. We were asked, "Why haven't you got your act together?"—and I gave undertakings that we would table amendments at this stage. Of course, in a perfect world, we would have had everything together before the Bill had even started its passage; but this measure will not be the first that noble Lords have known of in this House on which serious issues have to developed during the passage of the Bill. We had a fruitful and useful discussion in Committee, and I believe that I won one or two plaudits, which is rare indeed from noble Lords, for saying that I would consider the matter further. Today is a result of that further consideration—but the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is going to throw me sideways yet again.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would the Minister at some stage, although obviously not at this moment, let us all have the basis of the calculation that has led his advisers to tell him that the measure if enacted would lead to 150 extra prison places per year? I should have thought that that was rather a difficult calculation to make.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is far too difficult a calculation for me to have made, I must say. The noble Lord will not expect me to produce the formula here and now, but I shall write to him about the issue and ensure that other noble Lords know about it.
	(11)I recognise the seriousness of the debate. The points that have been made are substantial ones of principle, and I can only adumbrate the argument that we have considered them very carefully but that we have other principles that triumph over those and which have to take precedence, given our commitments and our need to act in the interest of road safety. I shall certainly fulfil the undertaking that we will consider the issue and discuss it with noble Lords before Third Reading. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will support the government amendment.

Lord Monson: My Lords, it is up to me to wind up on Amendment No. 19A. My noble friend Lord Tenby spoke of the fleeting satisfaction of victims' families if imprisonment is imposed on those responsible for the victim's death. I believe that he was spot on with the use of the word "fleeting". I urge the Government to reflect on the point that I made about Amendment No. 19A. If the victims' families are aware that those responsible for the victim's death are suffering the extreme inconvenience of being kept off the road for at least two years, they will be less zealous—as my noble friend Lord Northbourne also suggested—in demanding imprisonment. It must surely be better to disqualify careless but otherwise law-abiding drivers rather than add to our enormous prison population.
	So I urge the Government to reflect on what I have said before the next stage. Of course, I shall not press the amendment now. I am interested that the Government estimated an increase in the prison population of a mere 150. It has been estimated that 90 per cent of road accidents are caused by human error and only 10 per cent by such things as bad road conditions, weather conditions and so on. That 90 per cent gives us a figure of more than 3,000 deaths caused by careless people. However, the Government have made a most constructive and generous offer to look at the sentencing policy again before Third Reading. In that case, I shall not move any of my other amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment No. 19A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 19, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 19B and 19C, as amendments to Amendment No. 19, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 20:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING: UNLICENSED, DISQUALIFIED OR UNINSURED DRIVERS
	(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 3ZA (inserted by section (Meaning of driving without due care and attention)) insert—
	"3ZB CAUSING DEATH BY DRIVING: UNLICENSED, DISQUALIFIED OR UNINSURED DRIVERS
	A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road and, at the time when he is driving, the circumstances are such that he is committing an offence under—
	(a) section 87(1) of this Act (driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence),
	(b) section 103(1)(b) of this Act (driving while disqualified), or
	(c) section 143 of this Act (using motor vehicle while uninsured or unsecured against third party risks)."
	(2) In Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (offences to which certain sections apply), after the entry relating to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			  
			  "RTA section 3ZB Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers. Sections 11 and 12(1) of this Act." 
		
	
	(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—
	
		
			  
			 "RTA section 3ZB Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers. (a)   Summarily. (a)   12 months (in England and Wales) or 6 months (in Scotland) or the statutory maximum or both. Obligatory. Obligatory. 3–11" 
			   (b)   On indictment. (b)   2 years or a fine or both. 
		
	
	(4) In sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 17(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 (c. 13) (informing coroners)—
	(a) before "or 3A" insert ", 3ZB", and
	(b) before "or careless" insert ", unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers".
	(5) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c. 32) (offences where notice must be given to authority of State in which offender is normally resident), after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(ca) section 3ZB (causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers),"."
	[Amendment No. 20A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 20, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 20 agreed to.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 21:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"MOTORWAYS: MAXIMUM SPEED
	The maximum speed on a motorway shall be 80 miles per hour, and in other circumstances shall be determined by highway controllers and the police with access to the motorway warning signs system."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to restate the aim of this amendment, which was moved in Committee. It is designed to introduce the concept of variable speed limits in conjunction with increasing the maximum motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour. In combination, these two elements establish a simple and straightforward system of speed limits that is both safe and practical.
	The efficacy of variable speed limits has already been demonstrated on the M25 orbital motorway in Surrey, where road safety is undoubtedly enhanced by the adjustment of the speed limit in accordance with circumstances such as traffic flow and adverse weather. This point was broadly accepted in Committee by many of your Lordships and the Minister himself.
	It was the second part of this amendment, the proposed increase of the motorway speed limit to 80 miles per hour, that prompted a much greater debate in Committee. During that debate many noble Lords, and indeed the Minister, referred to studies conducted in the United States of the road safety impact of the repeal of the federal speed limit law in the US in 1995. I must remind noble Lords that these studies did not produce the unanimous conclusion that speed increase is detrimental to road safety, which was implicit in their citation in Committee. In fact, many of the studies found quite the opposite.
	The Cato Institute 1999 policy analysis, Speed Doesn't Kill: The Repeal of the 55mph Speed Limit—that is, in the United States—states that, despite the fact that 33 US states had raised their speed limits since 1995,
	"almost all measures of highway safety show improvement, not more deaths and injuries . . . Moreover, the average fatality rate even fell in the states that raised their speed limits".
	This conclusion is also supported by a recent 2005 study by another American academic, Robert O Yowell, who concluded in his study, The Evolution and Devolution of Speed Limit Law and the Effect on Fatality Rates, that,
	"the assertion that speed kills, and more speed kills more, is . . . unfounded".
	Furthermore, I must remind noble Lords that this new clause diverges significantly from the American experience, since raising the speed limit to 80 miles per hour in this instance is reliant upon the use of a variable speed limit motorway warning-sign system, where speed is adjusted in accordance with circumstances.
	Increasing the motorway speed limit is a proposal that already has widespread public and expert support. A recent survey conducted in May 2005 by the company Motor Insurance found that 82 per cent of motorists supported an increase in that limit. It is not surprising that the public reject the current motorway speed limit so emphatically when one considers that it is widely considered arbitrary and anachronistic. In short, it has lost its relevance to modern-day motorists, the cars they drive and the roads they drive on.
	Since the limit was set in 1964, both cars and motorways have advanced dramatically. Due to advances in technology, people are now able to drive cars safely at higher speeds. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise briefly to oppose this amendment. There is a lot of evidence that speed does kill—I could go on at length about it—but I just recall all the arguments put forward in the last grouping of amendments, which said: "A momentary lack of concentration and you will end up with five years in jail". The same could apply here—a momentary lack of concentration and you will kill half a dozen people by jumping off the motorway. I do not believe there is any argument for increasing the speed limit. The first thing to do is enforce the existing speed limit, rather than allowing people to drive up to 90 without any enforcement action being taken at all.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we have been around this particular motorway course before, in terms of speed limits—three times, I think, in the past 12 months. The arguments still hold. They hold even more strongly in some circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, referred to the American experience. The reason why American speed limits were so low at one time, she will remember, is that at that time they were, believe it or not, actually quite concerned about emissions and consumption of fuel. I know they have raised them more recently.
	I have to say that while she had one set of figures, I have another. In the states where speed limits have been raised to 75 miles per hour—and that is the highest level I know in the United States—there has been a 38 per cent rise in deaths per million vehicle miles. So I do not think her case is proven by the US, useful laboratory though that may be. One thing is clear, though: none of the states has an 80 mile-per-hour speed limit.
	As the noble Baroness said, we have introduced some variety to motorway speed limits on a section of the M25. The limit was lowered for safety reasons in adverse circumstances. It was never raised beyond 70. It dropped below 70 when either traffic conditions or weather conditions necessitated some gradation on a particularly difficult part of the M25, in all its wonderful uniqueness.
	With regard to the general issues, motorways are the safest roads we have in Britain, and the Government intend to keep them that way.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. This is not a matter we are going to agree upon. We have certainly been around the M25 and the 80 mile-an-hour speed limit a number of times. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 163

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
	"TRAFFIC SIGNS FOR INDICATING SPEED RESTRICTIONS AT REGULAR INTERVALS
	In section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (traffic signs indicating speed restrictions), after subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) Where street lighting is furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart, traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions shall be placed at regular intervals.""

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, this is a simple amendment. It is the present practice that, if there is a speed limit on a road and the road is in an unlit place, there are repeater signs. If the speed limit is 20 miles an hour, there are repeater signs; if it is 40 miles an hour, there are repeater signs; if it is 50 miles an hour, there are repeater signs; but if it is 30 miles an hour in a built-up area with streetlights not more than so many metres apart, no repeater signs may be erected by a local authority. That is plain stupid.
	I am not saying that this is a major tenet of government policy; it is something that the Government inherited. Over a long stretch of road, we need to occasionally remind people of the speed at which they ought to be travelling. The amendment seeks to do that, and I hope that the Minister will save us time by saying that he will concede the amendment, and send us to dinner at least with me happy. I beg to move.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we on these Benches very much support this amendment. I need add nothing to what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. It seems an anomaly that the relevant measure does not apply where the speed limit is 30 miles an hour in urban areas.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I was minded not to run my Committee stage amendment with regard to repeater signs for a 40 miles an hour speed limit. The rule ought to be that a repeater sign should be nearly in view so that you do not have to drive very far before you see a speed limit sign. Of course, the 30 miles an hour speed limit sign is the most important sign because the 30 miles an hour speed limit is designed to avoid pedestrian accidents.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. What happens with regard to 20 miles an hour speed limits? Repeater signs should be in place for 20 miles an hour speed limits as that speed limit is even more important than the 30 miles an hour speed limit. This is an anomaly. I suppose that it goes back to the days of gas lamps when the distance between gas lamps indicated the speed limit. If my noble friend cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he will come back with an appropriate measure at Third Reading.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the measure does not go back to gas lamps but it goes back a very long way indeed. The 30 miles per hour speed limit is the limit which obtains in urban areas. Everyone knows that it is by far the most significant of our speed limits until one gets on to a fast road. Wherever roads have street lighting it is fairly clear that it is an urban area where the 30 miles an hour speed limit obtains. That applies throughout the country. Repeater signs are in place where the 20 miles per hour limit applies because that is a new concept regarding restricted areas and people have to learn about new restrictions to promote safety on particular roads, especially near schools where the 20 miles an hour limit obtains.
	On our national roads the 60 miles per hour speed limit applies. On our roads with lighting, which are clearly urban roads, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. That is printed in the Highway Code. There is no hope of anyone becoming a competent driver unless they know that the speed they must drive at in an urban area is 30 miles an hour and below. I hear what the noble Lord says regarding the need to enforce that with more rigour. We certainly want to enforce it. That is why we are continuing our safety campaign with regard to speed. However, in view of the fact that 30 miles an hour speed limits are so prevalent, we would have to have repeater sign after repeater sign after repeater sign in every urban road and street in Britain. Does it make sense to do that when no driver can come before a court and say, "I exceeded the 30 miles per hour limit because I did not think that I was in a 30 miles per hour area"? Such defences are thrown out. These days, of course, the sanction is imposed automatically and does not go through the court. The noble Lord is asking for an enormous amount of additional street clutter and for more expenditure impositions to be placed on local authorities for the sake of a measure that constitutes almost the first principle of the Highway Code. If drivers do not know the first principle of the Highway Code, they do not obtain their licence. Although I recognise what noble Lords have said about the advantage of repeating things, wherever roads are lit and there is an initial 30 miles per hour speed limit sign, that is the limit which obtains.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I agreed with much of what he said, but does he not understand that part of the problem is that the 40 miles an hour speed limits are quite infrequent? Therefore, it can be difficult to know whether you should be driving at 40 miles an hour or 30 miles an hour. The danger is that you drive at 30 miles an hour and cause a nuisance because you should be driving a little faster. A difficulty is created by the fact that there are no repeater signs at regular intervals for the 40 miles an hour speed limit.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says but I do not agree with him. I could take him to Kidlington by the Thames Valley Police headquarters where there is an urban road, lit on both sides, and furnished with a speed camera. However, the speed limit is 40 miles an hour. A little further on it changes to 30 miles an hour. There are anomalies all over the place. Local authorities want to be able to delineate those areas where 30 miles an hour is the speed limit. I am talking about long stretches of road, much of it outside London, where these conditions apply. The Minister is being somewhat obstinate on this matter. I seek something that many local authorities want. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 109

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Assistance Scheme (Modifications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 October be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee and 13th Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in moving the Financial Assistance Scheme (Modifications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005, I shall speak also to the Financial Assistance Scheme (Appeals) Regulations 2005.
	Noble Lords will no doubt recall that in July we saw the introduction of the Financial Assistance Scheme (Appeals) Regulations, which allow someone who is dissatisfied with a review decision from the FAS scheme manager also to request an appeal against that review decision. The regulations set out the detail of the appeals process and appoint the Pension Protection Fund—PPF—ombudsman and the deputy PPF ombudsmen to hear appeals against internal review decisions that have been made by the scheme manager of the FAS. The persons who may appeal to the ombudsman are specified within these regulations. These are any interested persons to whom a notice of a review decision or subsequent review decision has been given by the FAS scheme manager under regulation 16 of the internal review regulations. "Interested persons" are defined as anyone who can apply under regulation 6 for a review of a reviewable determination under the internal review regulations, such as beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries, trustees, or those persons' representatives.
	The regulations also set out the time limits for appealing and the information that must be contained in the notice of the appeal. The regulations set out the procedures that must be followed by the ombudsman when he receives notice of an appeal. He must send an acknowledgment of the notice of appeal to each party to the appeal or that party's representative. Where the appeal relates to a scheme notification of scheme eligibility decision, there is a requirement for the ombudsman to take reasonable steps to publicise to all other interested persons in relation to the appeal the fact that an appeal has been made.
	Where two or more appeals are received in respect of the same matter relating to scheme notification or scheme eligibility, and those appeals are made on the same or broadly the same grounds, the ombudsman may make a single determination in respect of them all. That should speed up the time taken to reach a determination in some cases, and it will reduce the overall costs. Provisions are also contained in these regulations to provide for the ombudsman to convene an oral hearing where appropriate. The ombudsman can request an expert opinion on an appeal in respect of the FAS. If the ombudsman has given prior approval, he may pay costs and expenses incurred by parties to the appeal, witnesses who have been requested to attend an oral hearing, and any person he has appointed as a representative of a party.
	The FAS (Modifications and Miscellaneous) Regulations 2005 set out the modifications that are required to the Pensions Act 2004 for the PPF ombudsman to carry out his duties in respect of the FAS appeals scheme. The regulations also include some amendments to the FAS Regulations 2005, the FAS (Internal Review) Regulations 2005 and the FAS (Provision of Information and Administration of Payments) Regulations 2005.
	Noble Lords will be aware how important the need was to get the FAS up and running so that members could receive assistance as soon as possible. Through these amendments essential clarification is provided on certain aspects of the FAS scheme. When developing the appeals regulations we identified the need to clarify some definitions to ensure there was consistency. Other areas of work were also identified as requiring specific amendments to ensure that the policy intention was reflected clearly.
	These regulations have been introduced to provide for modifications that are required to the Pensions Act 2004 in order for the PPF ombudsman to carry out his duties in respect of FAS appeals and to allow for necessary amendments to be made to existing regulations. These amendments will provide clarification on aspects of the FAS and, importantly, provide for initial payments to be made to survivors of qualifying members.
	There is a requirement for the PPF ombudsman to provide the Secretary of State with a separate report on the duties he has carried out in connection with FAS appeals for each financial year. This is achieved through a modification to the section of the Pensions Act 2004 dealing with the PPF ombudsman's duty to prepare an annual report. This will now include a requirement for a separate report on the ombudsman's functions to be prepared in relation to the FAS. The modifications also provide the power that enables the making of the provision in the appeals regulations to meet costs and expenses.
	These regulations allow the ombudsman to refer a question of law arising from the investigation of a FAS appeal to the High Court in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland, or the Court of Sessions in Scotland. Amendments have also been made to the FAS Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1986) by substituting regulation 18 of those regulations and by making other consequential and minor amendments.
	Moving now to the amendments to the FAS (Internal Review) Regulations 2005 (S.I.2005/1994), most are minor but I must draw noble Lords' attention to one amendment to the internal review regulations, which relates to the time limits for requesting a review. There is currently no time limit set for members to request a review of member eligibility or member assessment decisions. This amendment imposes a one month time limit and the policy intention is that it should be able to be extended to 12 months at the Secretary of State's decision.
	I should draw noble Lords' attention to one aspect of the amendment. I regret that there is a typographical error in regulation 5(7)(c). This is the regulation which deals with the time for making an application for a review of a reviewable determination. At the end of that sub-paragraph it will be noted that current wording is "insert 'or (b)'". This should instead read "insert 'or (c)'". The current wording has the effect of allowing the scheme manager to extend the existing timescale in which to request a review of member-related decisions to 12 months where he considers that there are reasonable grounds for doing so. As there is currently no timescale in which to request a review, the scheme manager would be extending an already unlimited timescale by 12 months.
	The explanatory memorandum for this instrument made clear that the intention was to introduce a one month time limit with discretion to extend that new timescale to 12 months. As drafted, the regulation allows for the one month time limit but not the extension. I apologise to the House for that and it is my intention that this will be amended at the earliest opportunity.
	Minor amendments have also been made to the Financial Assistance Scheme (Provision of Information and Administration of Payments) Regulations 2005. They are necessary either to clarify existing definitions or to clarify certain requirements.
	I should inform the House that the FAS operational unit which opened for business on 1 September has been receiving notification details from affected schemes and will do so until the end of the notification period on 28 February 2006. The operational unit has also begun making decisions on scheme qualifications, with the first decisions being made on 25 October. Affected schemes can refer to the DWP website, which is regularly updated for further information. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 October be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee and 13th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, when I met the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, earlier, he suggested that he would prefer to hold his fire until I had shot my bolt; so I am happy to start. I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations and for having the courtesy to write to me in advance with the apology for the correction that he has just mentioned. I am happy to accept that.
	When we last debated a statutory instrument on the FAS, I drew attention to the estimated £16 million running cost of the scheme over its first three years of operation, including setting up costs. Can the Minister give us his latest estimate of those costs over the three years, bearing in mind that no robbed pensioner has had even the tiniest taste of a payment from this pitiful little pretence of a rescue fund? I should put clearly on the record from these Benches, as the spokesman for my party in this House, that government financial compensation payable under the financial assistance scheme should be on the same terms as those payable by the Pension Protection Fund.
	I must press the Minister to reply to the serious concerns raised by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee. I was slightly surprised that he did not refer to those in his opening remarks. It stated:
	"These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House".
	It stated in Paragraph 11 of its report:
	"We note the main Regulations setting up the scheme were made in July and the scheme came into operation on 1 September but it has taken until November for an appeals mechanism to be established. We would expect an appeals mechanism to be a more closely integrated part of the policy formulation".
	The committee stated in Paragraph 13:
	"This range of amendments strengthens our concern that the policy flowing from the Pensions Act 2004 has been in continuous evolution since the Act was passed. One of the criteria for this Committee to report an instrument is that it 'may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives'. We have found the long, continuing and evolving series of instruments which has resulted from the Pensions Act 2004 particularly difficult to assess in this regard".
	Well, join the club. Amen to that. Not to put too fine a point on it, policy is being made on the hoof.
	Turning to the details of the regulations, we broadly support them as being necessary to enable the FAS to do its job. I accept that the Minister is new, but I am bound to put again, as we did during the passage of the Pensions Bill, that it is a waste of time and money to have set up the FAS completely separately from the Pension Protection Fund, rather than let the scheme operate under the PPF umbrella. Clearly, this is a duplication of functions.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I echo the opening words of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and say that we few pensions addicts—not, I hope, interested persons, in the sense that the Minister used—are grateful to the Minister for explaining the regulations so clearly. I have no points of detail to raise, other than to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, not least in his remarks relating to the report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which the Minister is an aficionado, having been its first chairman.
	However, that brings me to statutory instruments generally, and the second one that we are debating in particular. I accept that the Minister has come clean, not only today but in his helpful letter to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and myself, on the drafting mistake in the modifications regulations. This drafting mistake raises two issues. The Minister's officials will no doubt know that I got quite incensed at what I regularly described in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as "sloppy drafting". Regulation 5(7) of the order to which I am referring is a current example. How on earth can officials extend the existing timescale in which the scheme manager can request a review of member-related decisions when there is no timescale? What has happened to the checking which used to take place in the Minister's department when I was there?
	Paragraph 7(c) of the regulations refers in error to a previous regulation which we are not amending and in which, as I said, the time for appeal is open-ended, so there is no point in amending it here. The original paragraph 3 of the Financial Assistance Scheme (Internal Review) Regulations needs a redraft, which we are promised.
	That brings me to my second point. If these regulations were negative, not only would we not be debating them but they would already be law, and so an amending order would be necessary, forthcoming and, again, not debated. These regulations—indeed, all regulations—concerning the Financial Assistance Scheme are made under the affirmative resolution. I was brought up, parliamentarily speaking, to believe that parliamentary time is a valuable commodity. The proper course for the Government would be to withdraw these regulations and relay them properly drafted. They should have done so last week. Had they not already been passed by another place, I would have asked the Minister to do just that—withdraw them—and, if he refused, I would have sought the opinion of the House. However, they have now slipped through another place and so that is not the position that we are in today. Therefore, the Minister will be relieved to know that, on this occasion, I will not do what I have just threatened. Nevertheless, I put him on notice for the future.
	As I said, as far as these orders go, I have no questions but, like the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I want to make some general points. Does the Minister yet know how many people will be given financial assistance under the scheme? This subject has arisen each time we have debated the Financial Assistance Scheme and the various adjuncts to it made through orders. At the time of the Bill, the figure was 60,000; a couple of orders ago, the figure was 70,000; now, it is suggested that 85,000 people have a realistic claim under the scheme.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, I am on record as saying that £20 million over 20 years—in other words, £400 million over the life of the scheme—is mean, and I believe that it was the smallest amount that the Government thought they could get away with. But let us for a moment give the Government the benefit of the doubt and say that it was sufficient for 60,000 people. How can it still be said to be enough now that there are so many more impoverished pensioners within the scheme; or is the Minister going to tell us that it does not really matter as some of them will be eligible for pension credit and all will be well in the end? I hope not—that would really annoy my noble friends, especially as some of the recipients will either be expected to have, or will be trying to get, further employment and thus will not be eligible.
	Lastly, no assistance has yet been paid out. The Government speak of payments starting "at the end of the year". Does that mean before or after Christmas, and does the Minister mean that this timetable is still viable?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Oakeshott, for their comments. Although they made some criticisms of the Government's handling of this measure, I am grateful for their general support for the regulations.
	I start by dealing with the issue of errors and, again, I apologise to the House. It is most unfortunate. Noble Lords will know that, when I was chair of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, I took a particular interest in the proper production of statutory instruments and the ability of this House properly to scrutinise them. I do not depart from that, and it is a matter of great disappointment to me that I have to come before your Lordships' House to apologise for an error that has occurred. I can assure noble Lords that I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen again and we will try to put it right as soon as possible.
	I turn to the specific comment of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee about the pace and timing of the various statutory instruments that have to be brought forward. Much of that reflects the need to get this new FAS system up and running as quickly as possible. Inevitably some problems have arisen in the timing of the regulations and some of the changes that have had to be made because of the need for speed. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I am advised that the FAS unit intends to make payments by the end of the year. I take that to be the calendar year and will stand by that. If I can give the noble Lord any more details, I will write to him, but clearly it is very important to get payments out as soon as possible.
	We debated the issue of running costs in July. The figure is the same as I gave then—that is, £16 million—and at present there is no change to that estimate. Obviously, in the light of experience, we will have to look at the matter again but that is the figure that I have. We shall be employing about 60 people in the York office of the FAS. It has had to be produced and I want the administration of the scheme to be as efficient as possible. I am sure that we are working towards that. None the less, the scheme will cost money and we must accept that.
	I do not know whether I should respond to the general points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Skelmersdale. I think that the matter has been debated and, in the end, Parliament has reached the decision that this is the route down which we should go. Inevitably, hard decisions have had to be made in setting up the assistance scheme—I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. Any government in our position would have to make similar decisions, although there may be disagreement about the approach taken. No one can be in any doubt whatever about the personal consequences for individual pension scheme members when their pension schemes go down. We discussed that in a debate last week and one can only have extraordinary sympathy for anyone affected in that way.
	The £400 million is the amount of money that we have set aside. I believe I said in July that that will be reviewed in the next spending round cycle, and we will then know more about the number of schemes that the FAS has accepted and the number of scheme members involved. At the moment, we envisage that up to 15,000 members who are within three years of the scheme's normal retirement age will benefit from the FAS topping up their pensions. I say to the noble Lord that it is early days. The period during which applications have to be made ends on 20 February and we will know much more after that date. When that date is reached and we have more up-to-date estimates, I shall of course be very happy to write to both noble Lords.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In view of the figures that were bandied about when we discussed the Bill and on subsequent occasions, 15,000 seems to me to be a very small figure. Is that because so far applications have not been made or is there another reason? Is the department advertising the existence of the scheme?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are the latest estimates that I have been given. However, they come with the caveat that at the moment it is very difficult to estimate the number of pensioners, and I think that we will have to wait until the end of February to have a clearer idea. It is important to consider the number who will benefit from the scheme in relation to the number of pensioners who may be affected by insolvent schemes but will not be eligible to receive payments from the FAS scheme. The figure of 85,000 that he has quoted may reflect estimates of the number of those people rather than of those who are eligible. As I say, it is early days. I cannot say much more at this stage, but I will come back to the noble Lord when I have further information.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned the question of the amount under the scheme being reviewed in the next public spending round. My honourable friend Danny Alexander, whose constituency's name I will not attempt to repeat at this time of night as it would detain us, mentioned a fair point in the Commons. As the public spending round was now being put off for review from 2007 to 2008, that is effectively a year's wait for people. He did not get a proper answer. Now that one has had a few days to consider it, will the Minister undertake to raise with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the fact that those who suffer under the FAS should not have to wait an extra year for it to be reviewed, just because the public spending review has been put off?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords, I do not think I can do that. It is quite clear that the review of the required sum for the FAS will have to be set alongside other government priorities. It must therefore fall to be dealt with within the next spending round review.
	I say again that this discussion will have a rather better foundation when we actually know the likely numbers involved. We will not know that for a certain amount of time. As I said, as soon as I can, I will of course make available to noble Lords as much information as I can.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again. However, just now I asked about the department's advertising of the scheme, to which the Minister did not respond.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that information is available on the web. However, I will double-check to make sure that it is. To be fair to everyone likely to be involved, we clearly have a responsibility for making sure that publicity is available. I will check what manner of publicity is available, but we will be seeking to make information available to all who may be eligible.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Assistance Scheme (Appeals) Regulations 2005

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26 October be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee and 13th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination (Private Clubs etc.) Regulations 2005

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19 October be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee and 13th Report from the Merits Committee].

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in my view these draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They will ensure that private members clubs with 25 or more members are under essentially the same duties of reasonable adjustment which are imposed under Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act on providers of goods, services and facilities to the general public. That is what we proposed in our consultation document published during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, on which we received a small but positive response in agreement. Many private clubs which provide services to the public, such as rooms for hire, will of course already be well acquainted with these duties. I stress that private clubs will only be asked to do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. That means that disability discrimination legislation will provide a familiar and consistent regime of law for disabled people, whether in relation to providers of goods, services and facilities to the general public or private members clubs providing benefits, facilities and services to their members, associates and guests.
	The duties are anticipatory, so private clubs must consider the likely needs of any actual or future disabled members, associates and guests in advance of a person facing difficulties, and make arrangements to meet them where this is reasonable and in all the circumstances. Clubs must be prepared to make changes to their policies, practices, procedures and physical features of the premises they occupy. They must also be prepared to provide auxiliary aids or services to help disabled people access their benefits, facilities or services.
	In all these cases, they must do these things where not to do so would make it unreasonably difficult or impossible for a disabled person who is a member, associate or guest to make use of the benefits, services or facilities provided by the club for its non-disabled members, associates or guests—the threshold of "unreasonably difficult" or "impossible to use" being the same as that which currently applies to service providers under Part 3 of the DDA. The duties also extend to prospective members and guests within the scope of the non-discrimination duties provided for in the Act. Any breach of the duties is enforceable only by a disabled person who is adversely affected. Clubs also have broadly the same limited range of justifications for not making reasonable adjustments, as do providers of goods and services to the general public.
	The duty to make reasonable adjustments is intended to apply from 4 December 2006. The Disability Rights Commission is in the process of producing a revised code of practice on Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act, which will include practical advice and guidance to clubs on how to apply these duties. The consultation period on the code has just ended, and the commission will shortly be submitting a revised code to us for approval and for laying before Parliament.
	However, in extending these principles to private members clubs, we have had to bear in mind the special relationship that such clubs have with their members, associates and guests. There are, therefore, some differences of detail to deal with the particular circumstances of clubs. For example, where a private club—perhaps one which comprises a local interest group—meets in a private house belonging to one of the club's members or associates, additional considerations apply to ensure that the member or associate concerned would be under no obligation to agree to making changes to his or her home.
	The regulations also set out certain circumstances where there are exceptions to the duty not to treat a disabled person less favourably than a non-disabled person for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability. These circumstances are similar to those which apply in relation to providers of goods, services and facilities to the general public. It is intended that these provisions will apply from 5 December 2005.
	We have consulted on the policy behind these regulations. We have framed them to provide a consistent legislative framework across providers of goods, facilities and services, and we have taken account of the special relationship that clubs have with their members. I think that we have reached a fair balance between the rights of disabled people to participate fully in all society has to offer, and the rights of people to associate in private. I commend these draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 19 October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee and 13th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

Lord Addington: My Lords, as we are all busy giving way to each other at a rate of knots, I will just say that I basically welcome these regulations. I remember that when we did the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill a representative of the London clubs came to see us. The whole committee was thrown into shocked surprise when he basically said "Yes, we can do this. There isn't a problem. We will be able to come into line with what else is going on here". There was a sense of anticlimax, a few of us having expected a stonewalling rearguard action.
	The regulations basically say that private clubs, which have quite an important place in our society, must ensure that they are consistent with provision for the disabled population in other parts of their lives. The regulations are totally in keeping with the most recent legislation, which filled in all the gaps around the initial legislation. It may not have gone far enough. Perhaps we will need a single equality Act. But as far as the regulations go, in the current framework, I can find no real objection to them.

Lord Carter: My Lords, the regulations are extremely welcome. The Joint Committee looked hard at the issue and welcomed the new function in the draft Bill. We examined it in depth. We had the evidence from the London clubs, which surprised us all because they were in favour. This adds to the whole armoury of things that the 1995 and 2005 Acts and the rest are doing to help disabled people. It is wholly welcome.

Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Government for bringing forward these regulations, which are, as other noble Lords have said, extremely welcome. They mean that disabled people will have more opportunities for socialising, networking and taking part in political life, and that yet another barrier to disabled people having equal opportunities in taking part in ordinary everyday life has been removed. The Government are to be congratulated.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I too welcome the regulations. It is overdue that the same rights and privileges that have been extended to disabled people from the 1995 Act onwards should extend to their activities in clubs. I have no doubt about that.
	I was going to ask the Minister various questions about "reasonableness" in this particular circumstance, but since the same test will be used as has been used previously in respect of public buildings and so on, I do not think that it is necessary. However, I think it is necessary to follow up a point made in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Wells, which was that Parliament passes legislation and so often expects others to execute it. There is a well trodden path on disability legislation, which we all know about—at least there has been up to now. The aggrieved person would normally turn to the Disability Rights Commission. In passing, I congratulate the Government on setting that up in the first place. As I say, he would normally turn to the DRC after his complaint to the perpetrator of the alleged offence had been ignored. The commission, if it thought it right, would then take up the case. That was the position when we debated the Bill earlier this year.
	However, the DRC is about to disappear into a body called, I believe, the equal opportunity and human rights commission. Clearly, the latter will have the capability to act for the complainant, but will it have the same clout that the DRC has achieved in its short lifetime in sorting out the disabled person's problems, not only as a last resort but in taking cases to court?
	Lastly, there is a whole raft of regulations flowing from two Acts. Are there any plans within the department to consolidate both them and the two Acts into a single entity, not necessarily an Act but into plain man's language, so that those affected by them can readily understand what is being demanded of them? I understood the Minister just now to tell us that there would be a plain man's guide to access to clubs following up this order, but that is only a part of the whole general scheme which I believe is required.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the general support that noble Lords from all sides of the House have given to this regulation and the provisions contained in it. That is very welcome and much appreciated. I also would like to pay tribute to the London clubs and, generally, the private clubs, which have been in communication with my department for their positive response. That is very welcome and should be commended.
	I am interested in consolidation. I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, a guarantee. All I will say to him is that I shall endeavour to see what can be done because, as someone who was brought up on NHS Acts and who constantly found problems with the lack of consolidation, I very much understand the problem. As ever, one finds that, in prioritisation terms, it is sometimes difficult to get consolidation, but I certainly understand his point.
	The noble Lord raised the test of reasonableness with me before the debate. He did not ask me any questions on it because, he is right, it follows existing precedent. I shall undertake to write to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, perhaps with an outline of some of the issues, if both noble Lords would find that helpful, and I can place a copy of that correspondence in the Library.
	On the DRC and the equalities commission that is to be established, I agree with the noble Lord that the DRC has done an absolutely splendid job. Once again one must pay enormous tribute to the chair of the commission, the commissioners and the staff. How it has conducted its business has been exemplary. One test of that is its relationship with the bodies it regulates, alongside disabled people on whose behalf it works. It seems to me that the DRC has established a very good position in terms of the respect in which it is held by those it is responsible for regulating, but also the support it has received from disabled people. I do not hesitate to pay tribute to it.
	We think that there is great advantage in bringing the various agencies together, and that is why we are taking legislation through Parliament. The noble Lord will know that the intention is to set up a special committee, particularly charged with looking at disability matters. We want to add value and bring the best of all three bodies into this new organisation. If that new body follows the example of the DRC, it will be very well placed to take on these duties. I am grateful for the comments.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Woodland Premium Schemes (Amendment)(England) Scheme 2005

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: rose to move, That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Schemes (Amendment) (England) Scheme 2005 laid before the House on 2 November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, since 1992, farm woodland premium schemes have encouraged woodland creation by providing annual payments for up to 15 years to help compensate farmers for loss of income as a result of converting agricultural land to woodland. They form part of the England Rural Development Programme and so come under Pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy.
	The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1992 was closed to new applicants in 1997 when it was replaced by the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1997. However, payments continue to be made to agreement holders under the 1992 scheme, and both schemes thus remain in force.
	This short draft statutory instrument before your Lordships makes two principal amendments. First, it sets out the adjustment that will be made to payments made under the Farm Woodland Premium Schemes 1992 and 1997, in the case of scheme land that is used as set aside in England, following the most recent reforms of the common agricultural policy.
	Most farmers are required to set aside from production a certain proportion of their arable land in order to claim support payments under Pillar 1 of the CAP. Under the new CAP single payment scheme that was introduced with effect from 1 January 2005, farmers can use farm woodland premium scheme land to meet their set-aside obligations in certain circumstances. In England they will receive a set-aside payment under the single payment scheme for farm woodland premium scheme land used in this way. Therefore, where farmers choose to use all or part of their farm woodland premium scheme payment, we propose to reduce their farm woodland premium scheme payment by an amount equivalent to the set-aside payment being received in respect of the land concerned. This is necessary to prevent the same measure being doubled funded under different European Community provisions, since the set-aside payment is partially restoring the income lost as a result of afforestation, for which the FWPS payment is intended to compensate.
	The second amendment closes the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme 1997 to new applicants in England. Entry into the farm woodland premium scheme has always been conditional upon the woodland concerned being planted with support under the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme.
	The woodland grant scheme has been replaced in England with effect from July 2005 by a new Forestry Commission scheme, the English woodland grant scheme. The English woodland grant scheme comprises a range of incentives to encourage the creation of new woodland and the stewardship of existing woodland, including income for payments comparable to those previously available under the farm woodland premium scheme.
	Closure of the original woodland grant scheme and its replacement by the English woodland grant scheme means that the farm woodland premium scheme is already, to all intents and purposes, closed to new applicants in England. The order formalises that closure. Some minor additional amendments are also included in the draft instrument to update the interpretation of provisions with the two farm woodland schemes. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft Farm Woodland Premium Schemes (Amendment) (England) Scheme 2005 laid before the House on 2 November be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, who I think has been troubled with what I have been troubled by all weekend—a terrible cold. Perhaps neither of us should have been debating on Friday when I suspect that neither of us were feeling very well. I thank the Minister for explaining the statutory instrument. Obviously, in principle, we support it. However, I should like to ask a couple of questions about it.
	The Minister rightly said that the payment will be made from money allocated under Pillar 2. If, for any reason, the Government find themselves having to renegotiate the common agricultural policy payments under the reform to which we have already agreed, it is suggested that some money under Pillar 2 may well be squeezed. What guarantee can the Minister give the House tonight that those payments will not be jeopardised?
	Secondly, the Minister spoke about the obligation for payments to be made for such land, that can or has been used for set-aside. She also referred to double funding. I understand double funding, but, if a farmer already has set-aside land and is not in the scheme, how much per acre—or hectare, I do not mind which—does he get for that before the new scheme comes into being?
	My last question is very short. The Minister told us tonight that the scheme will be run by the Forestry Commission. I presume that it will continue to be run by the Forestry Commission, even though Natural England will be established. The noble Baroness will remember that on Second Reading of that Bill, there was quite a discussion about what payments would be made by Natural England and about the close working relationship between Natural England and the Forestry Commission, which is not being included in Natural England. I am still not positive whether the Forestry Commission will continue to be the payers, rather than the organisers of it. I would be grateful for clarification of those three points and I hope that the noble Baroness will soon be feeling much better.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the scheme and sympathise with her that she had to go through so many different sorts of woodland scheme. I should like to take up where the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, left off. Although we are talking about trees, it seems curious that the Forestry Commission will be the administrator of the scheme when, presumably, the point of the scheme is to encourage more biodiversity. I welcome the continuation of the idea that set-aside will be used for something more constructive, such as the growing of woodland.
	However, in pursuing Natural England's objective, which is to encourage biodiversity and ensure that various species have what is increasingly understood to be necessary—not only wildlife corridors but large areas in which they can survive and breed—that approach is important. So, as the noble Baroness said, including the Forestry Commission here may be an impediment, unless the relationship is very close.
	We understand that the money is now to come from Pillar 2. The scheme will eventually be in competition with all the other rural development schemes. As I see it, there is no guarantee that the scheme will continue beyond 2013. However, at present, we welcome the scheme and the fact that farm woodland will be supported, at least in the near future, and look forward to Natural England strongly supporting the further establishment of this essential habitat.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I start with the issue that they both raised. We have a statutory obligation under the Farmland and Rural Development Act 1988 to review payment rates under the farm woodland premium schemes and their predecessor, the farm woodland scheme, at least every five years, and to lay a report before Parliament. The most recent such report was laid in July 2001. The introduction of the single payment scheme will be one of the factors that we will take into account in the new review that has just started.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked about financial disadvantages as a result of the scheme. Farmers will not be disadvantaged. The reduction to the farm woodland scheme payment will be offset by the set-aside payment but, in any event, any decision to use FWPS land as set-aside is entirely voluntary.
	I was asked about the role of the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission will continue to run English woodland grant schemes even following the creation of Natural England. Ministerial responsibility will remain with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the agreements will continue to be governed by the provisions of the farm woodland premium scheme and the farm woodland scheme statutory instruments.
	Current plans are that day-to-day administration of the existing farm woodland premium scheme agreements and ongoing agreements under the predecessor scheme, the farm woodland scheme, will transfer to the Forestry Commission in 2006. However, that is subject to all the operational issues associated with such a transfer being satisfactorily resolved. I am conscious that I have not given the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, an answer on the average value of the scheme. I do not have that figure to hand. I will write to her and send a copy of the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I also failed to ask whether the Government are confident that the new arrangement will work as well as the encouragement given in the past to farmers to promote woodland areas—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, also raised that. I think that the noble Baroness has covered it but, if not, she might do so in her letter. Will any of the new money be ring fenced longer term, because that is a very important aspect? I apologise for coming back; I should have thought of that at the time.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I will endeavour to give the great detail available on that to both noble Baronesses.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.18 to 8.30 pm.]

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
	[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
	Clause 20 [Using vehicle in dangerous condition etc.]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 23, line 27, at end insert "and the offender was not an employee driving a vehicle owned by his employer in connection with his employment"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we return to,
	"using [a] vehicle in dangerous condition",
	and, in particular, the question of determining culpability between owner and driver. Despite having probed the Minister extensively in Committee, we remain troubled still about the potential impact of this clause on people whose work necessitates that they drive vehicles owned by their employers. As noble Lords will recall, the clause is designed to change the penalty for committing a second offence from one of discretionary disqualification for the courts to that of obligatory disqualification if the offence is,
	"committed within three years of a previous conviction of the offender under section 40A".
	We are concerned that the reality of this change could be disproportionate discrimination against employees who drive vehicles owned by their employers. The Minister sought to allay our fears in Committee. In his attempts to persuade us of the equitability of the provision, he said that,
	"existing legislation provides for the fact that if the driver can demonstrate that he drove the vehicle on the basis of assurances from the employer that it was a safe vehicle, but it proved not to be, the driver would not be prosecuted; rather the owner of the vehicle would be".—[Official Report, 4/7/05; col. 528.]
	However, the central problem remains. Once the second offence renders disqualification obligatory rather than discretionary, the option is removed from the hands of the court to apportion blame between the employer and the employee.
	The offence refers to,
	"using [a] vehicle in dangerous condition".
	The employee would technically be guilty if he were driving his employer's vehicle and he was unaware that it was in a dangerous condition.
	In its current form, despite the Minister's assurances, the clause does not explicitly account for the very serious scenario where an employee could unwittingly be driving a vehicle which was unsafe. To try to make clear blue water between the employer and the employee in this part of the Bill, I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend on the Front Bench to which my name is added. I understand the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy; that is, predominantly youngsters who drive wrecks of cars. They need to be deterred from doing that. The first time that they get convicted of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, their legal advisers, and certainly the court, will point out to them that if they do it again, they will be disqualified. That is the mischief that the Minister is targeting. But I do not think that he intends to target a professional lorry driver—the most likely—or a travelling salesman who inadvertently finds out that he has used a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
	Yes, it may be that the employer should have known that the vehicle was dangerous and the driver may not know, but there are some things you can do when using a vehicle in a dangerous condition that the driver would not be aware of. I do not believe that the Minister wants inadvertently to ban from driving a professional lorry driver. My noble friend's amendment would deal with that, while the Minister would still be able to meet his objective of dealing with the mischief of a youngster driving around in a wreck of a car. No one is employed to drive a wreck; employed drivers normally use vehicles in a much better condition. I urge the Minister to consider this point very carefully.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl in that it is the responsibility of the driver, before he starts any journey, to make sure that his vehicle is in reasonable condition. That applies equally to an employee and to someone who is self-employed. It would not be fair to remove the obligation from an employee to ensure that the vehicle is in good condition. It is also his responsibility to make sure that he is not overloaded because the employer is often not in the place in which goods are loaded on to a vehicle. He must check that his load has been properly distributed on the vehicle. It is also his responsibility to ensure that he is sober, that he has not taken drugs and, beyond all else, he must ensure that he can meet the drivers' hours regulations.
	The Minister will recall his Written Answer to my Question concerning vehicles on the A55 in Wales. We found that, in the case of vehicles from the Republic of Ireland, some 55 per cent of those stopped in an extensive check were in breach of the regulations. If the employer is in Ireland, he will not be supervising his employees on the A55 in North Wales. It is dangerous to go down the road to accepting that an employee is somehow exempted from taking responsibility for the condition of his vehicle and the way it is used.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the errant driver would still incur penalty points on his driving licence and therefore, if he had a bad driving record, he could eventually lose his licence?

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, as the noble Earl well knows, the problem is that the chances of being caught are so small that very many people will take a risk. While enforcement activity remains so low, that will continue.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, particularly since it has generated more controversy than I would be able to introduce from this side. For that we thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is quite right to mention his Question for Written Answer which highlighted the example of lorries coming in from Ireland and using the A55 in North Wales. I am afraid that a very high percentage of them were not fit for the road. That is an important consideration.
	As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have discussed the issue previously and I understand the intention behind the amendment. I note the proper concern for the position of an employee who has the misfortune of working for an unscrupulous employer, but this Bill is about road safety and we have a duty to the public. Therefore there are obligations on those who take charge of a vehicle, to say nothing of the fact that one aspect of road safety is the hope that the driver will be safe. It is in his interest that we should reinforce the obligation to make checks on the vehicle. Our obligation to ensure the safety of the general public is quite clear and the reason we have the offence in the first place. Moreover, if we are considering the commercial transport industry, it is all the more important that we have these safety provisions in place.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has highlighted the problem with the amendment. It would open a very wide loophole associated with circumstances in which someone might try to claim that they did not own the vehicle and were merely driving it on behalf of their employer.
	The concerns expressed are adequately covered by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which states:
	"Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using a vehicle in a dangerous condition etc) the court must not . . . order him to be disqualified, or . . . order any particulars or penalty points to be endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him, if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person".
	So we are covered by existing legislation.
	The safeguard for the public is that we provide protection to the employee while requiring him to apply a reasonable amount of diligence when he is taking a vehicle onto the public highway. If a driver knowingly took out an unsafe vehicle only because he worked for an unscrupulous employer, he would deserve the punishment; he would be as guilty as the neglectful employer. If he can prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person, he would be likely to escape disqualification on endorsement when the court examined the case.
	So we are covered by existing legislation. I would be very wary of any loophole that would be created which might help to explain some of the issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred when he mentioned the incidence of lorries—admittedly those coming from an external source—that do not match up to the proper specification. I hope that is a reasonable answer for the noble Baroness.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister is over-egging the pudding because no one is arguing that the court should not have an option to disqualify a driver if it is satisfied that he was culpable in what was going on. I hear what the Minister says about Section 48 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act.
	The clause makes it absolutely mandatory on courts to disqualify someone who has been prosecuted for taking out a vehicle which is an unfit condition for the second time within three years. The only aspect we are questioning is whether the court should have the right to make its own decision as to whether a case is serious enough to merit disqualification. It should have the option. I am sure the Minister will know that courts are less and less happy about the mandatory sentencing that is being passed down from Parliament because it does not leave them room to make their own judgments. That is the aspect we are questioning.
	However, I hear what the Minister says. I hope that I have made our concerns clear. I am prepared for today's purposes to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 21 [Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 23, line 42, at end insert "except in circumstances where a motor vehicle is stationary and the engine is switched off"

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we return to the subject of the use of mobile phones in motor vehicles, on which we enjoyed a stimulating debate in Committee. While I have no doubt that all noble Lords will join in the condemnation of those operating hand-held mobile telephones while driving a motor vehicle—as do I—it is important not unnecessarily to criminalise those drivers who use their mobile phones inside their vehicles but while not actually driving.
	In Committee, my noble friend Lord Hanningfield illustrated the point with the example of a senior social worker who was stuck in a traffic jam but felt unable to make an important telephone call for fear of committing an offence. The current wording of this clause would render any driver of a vehicle that is not moving—even if the engine is switched off—who uses their mobile phone to make an urgent call, guilty of an offence that would result in a mandatory three point endorsement on their driving licence. The amendment is designed to address this absurd situation by providing a clear stipulation of the circumstances where a person is able to use their mobile telephone without fear of being penalised.
	When we last debated this issue, the Minister highlighted a number of difficulties inherent in the specific wording of the amendment. He spoke at length about the problematic distinction between being in control of a vehicle and driving a vehicle, and drew our attention to the peculiar fact that there is no definition before the law of what constitutes "driving". However, I believe that if you take the keys out of the car and put them on the back seat and are therefore unable to drive, you would possibly be considered not to be driving. The Minister also referred to the difficulties that stem from the advent of new technologies that automatically switch one's engine on and off in pursuit of fuel economy.
	While I concede that the Minister cannot accept the amendment as it stands, that does not preclude the possibility of producing a form of words that would satisfy noble Lords. I simply cannot believe that there can be no room for this type of sensible flexibility within the legislation that we have all agreed to be so necessary.
	I also remind the Minister that he gave the Committee an assurance that he would look at the issue again. I very much hope that he may be able to tell us tonight that he has done so and that there is a way out.
	While there may be technical difficulties in the way in which the amendment is worded at present, something needs to be done. There must be some leeway to enable people to make a brief emergency telephone call if they are, for example, stuck in a traffic jam and are very late picking up a child from school. None of us holds any brief for people who drive round with one hand on the steering wheel and the other clamping a phone to their ear while trying to turn a corner. That is not what we are saying. Our amendment would cover someone, in extremis, who took the decision that they had to make a phone call, stopped somewhere safe to make it and then moved on.
	If we do not have a provision of this sort that eases us through, the legislation will be deficient in this aspect. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Hanham. If we do not make some progress on this matter, there will be a perverse effect. When I drive my vehicle, I always switch off my hand-held mobile phone, which I believe is the right thing to do. I should not be using a mobile phone. I do not want it to ring when I am driving; I want to concentrate on the driving. But if I cannot legally make a call when I am stuck in a traffic jam to tell whoever I am supposed to meet in two hours' time that I will not be there for two and a half hours, I cannot relieve the stress on me from the traffic jam. So the solution for me would be to fit a hands-free phone, in which case I might as well leave it switched on. Then I will start making or receiving calls while I drive along, which I am sure is not what the Minister wants.
	There is a perverse incentive. If people cannot switch on their hand-held mobile phone for a few minutes to make a call and apologise because they will be late, they will be encouraged to go for hands-free phones, which they might as well leave switched on. The Minister is smiling because he knows this is an ingenious argument.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have both said, there must come a time when it is safe to use a phone. With the engine switched off you cannot move, and whether you are in a lay-by or stuck in traffic, it does not make that much difference. If you get out of the car—which you are not allowed to do on a motorway, but people probably do occasionally if the traffic is not moving—that is illegal in one sense and legal in another. There has to be a solution.
	What worries me is that if it remains illegal to use a mobile phone when you are sitting in a car under any circumstances, the police will probably turn a blind eye most of the time, but there will be occasions when they do not turn a blind eye, which they have a habit of doing these days. They arrested a lady walking along a cycle track in Dundee under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. She was not doing anything, just walking down a cycle track. The police do funny things. There needs to be a way out of this, and the amendment looks to be a good start.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support this extremely sensible amendment. Where a vehicle is stationary and the engine is switched off, that vehicle is clearly not being driven, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, pointed out. As was said by a number of noble Lords in Committee, an individual who has been able to let his family or his firm know that he is stuck in a 10-mile traffic jam is going to be a much safer driver when he finally emerges from it than a driver who has not been able to let anybody know and who drives fast to make up time in case his family believes that something untoward has happened to him. A cynic might point out that the police are in practice extremely unlikely to be able to identify and charge anybody who is stuck in a 10-mile traffic jam, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said. They would not be able to get through for a start. But that is not the point. We must look at the principle of the matter. The principle of the amendment is absolutely right.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there are electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles on the road. The amendment should therefore state "motor" rather than "engine".

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I do not know whether the words are right, but I accept that if the amendment is not passed, it will encourage people to use hands-free phones, which are quite dangerous. It is much more dangerous than somebody stopping his car, switching the engine off—or the motor, as my noble friend says—and making the telephone call. I know that we have heard a lot about traffic jams, but many people are called urgently and might want to respond. It is better that they do so by stopping and making the call rather than converting to hands-free phones. I hope that the Minister may have some good news for us.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, this amendment makes so much sense. For the amusement or fear of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—I am not sure which—I relate to the House that we were overtaken by a lady in an unmarked car who had a hand-held mobile phone in one hand and a piece of paper on the steering wheel on which she was writing. She was stopped for driving at more than 100 miles an hour and was disqualified from driving.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support this common-sense amendment. Would one be penalised for reporting an accident on a mobile phone, as I have done?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have been assailed on all sides. But I suppose that one could ask, whoever thought that the arrival of the mobile phone in a car would be an aid to road safety? Everything that I have heard about mobile phones has been about how they distract from driving, and yet today we have heard the mobile phone defended on all sides as almost an essential aid to keeping the roads safe—as if the roads were a good deal less safe before people could report what was happening on the road and say that they would be home late for tea.
	I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said about reporting an accident ahead. However, if a phone was demonstrably used because of an emergency on the road, I think that there would be full understanding by the police and—if it ever went beyond the police—the court of the purpose of the call. I cannot imagine that a prosecution would be sustained.
	However, all the other representations from noble Lords have been about personal convenience. Now this is to suppose that drivers know that there is a 10-mile jam in front of them and know that they are going to be safely ensconced there for 45 minutes, and that is why they use their phone. What about the person who is in a jam and is just over the top of a bridge that unsights the traffic behind but is busy on the telephone and does not get away as quickly as he should and then is hit by a vehicle from behind, being stationary when he should not be? In such circumstances, do you think the driver could erect a defence and say, "Well of course I was stationary. I was concentrating on my mobile phone"? Would that be a perfectly reasonable defence? No, it would not.
	We must recognise that if we are focusing on driver alertness and attention, the issue of the mobile phone must be a distraction. I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said—that I will drive everyone from using the handheld mobile phone to using the hands-free mobile phone. I shall not be doing that. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, well knows, as does every other driver in the country, we do not believe that attention to hands-free phones while driving is a good idea either. Although there may be a common assumption that they are wonderfully safe because both hands are on the steering wheel, the trouble is that the hands are engaged but the mind is not. That is why we have reservations about the hands-free telephone. I am not involved in a contradiction when I suggest that because we have enormous reservations about using handheld phones that we are somehow driving people to using hands-free phones. We made it clear in our guidance that we do not believe that hands-free phones should be used either.
	That is not to say that we did not have a very interesting debate, although the terms of the debate have changed a little, with an amendment that is even better drafted than the amendment we debated previously. We had an interesting debate last time as well, and I have thought about the issues, because I recognise that noble Lords would not have contributed to the debate if there were not a point here—namely, that people can see circumstances in which a phone might be of assistance.
	Let me mention the obvious point: we do not have a definition of "driving" in our road traffic law, as I explained in Committee. We have never had one, and the law has worked—largely because it is difficult to know how one establishes a definition of driving a car. However, we know that there are technical points, such as the ones identified by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—namely, "Am I free to use a mobile phone, because my engine automatically switches off because I am driving a certain kind of vehicle?". To allow that would be to drive a coach and horses through these concepts.
	I have sympathy with noble Lords' arguments. I do not like standing here and looking as if I am somehow a technological throwback because I do not enjoy the use of mobile phones. We all use mobile phones, and to good effect. Some of us use them to bad effect as well, when they ring in places they ought not to ring; my visit to the theatre the other evening was disturbed by a mobile phone. I must say that puts one against them for a little while. We all benefit from mobile phones, but mobile phones and driving do not mix. Despite all the representations made in Committee, we did not believe that a case had been made out for a change with regard to mobile phones and driving. The fact that a car is stationary need not mean that full attention does not have to be paid.
	Of course, there was an allusion to another kind of instance—to people getting out of cars in 10-mile jams on motorways. Where on earth would the law be if we had an exception that said that if, in the driver's judgment, he was going to be there for a period of time, he could take a stroll on the motorway because it is obviously perfectly safe if he is in a jam? Of course he is perfectly safe—except that some of our fellow citizens have a very odd definition of a 10-mile jam or wandering around the motorway. The same thing applies to the issue of mobile phones.
	We have heard a very well articulated argument on an amendment that I am afraid I cannot accept.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am almost tempted to say that the Minister has, with his comments about hands-free phones, led us to a situation in which no one will be able to be accompanied in a car at all. I cannot see that there is anything much more diverting about talking to a hands-free mobile than there is in talking to someone who is sitting next to the driver, or to passengers or children sitting behind him. Should they be dumped—do they need to come as well? So we are all going to be travelling up and down the motorway on our own, with a mobile phone. In that case, since we will all be on our own with our mobile phone, there will be no one to alert anyone else to the difficulty of a driver who has a problem, such as a child needing to be collected from school while you are stuck, or something that may look like an emergency to the person driving, but not to everyone else.
	There is a need for an escape clause here, although I know the Minister does not think so. We will probably try again, but for today's purposes I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 26:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"POWER OF POLICE TO STOP VEHICLE
	In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), in the entry relating to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (failing to stop mechanically propelled vehicle or cycle when required to do so), in column (4) (punishment), for "Level 3 on the standard scale." substitute—
	"(a) Level 5 on the standard scale if committed by a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle.
	(b) Level 3 on the standard scale if committed by a person riding a cycle."
	and, in column (2) (general nature of offence), for "motor" substitute "mechanically propelled"."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 26 I shall speak to Amendment No. 27 at the same time. Both amendments increase the penalties available for existing offences. Amendment No. 26 raises the penalty for failing to stop for a constable under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act from a fine of £1,000 to one of £5,000. This was not contained in the consultation on bad driving offences, but was mentioned by a small number of respondents who thought the penalty for failing to stop for a police officer should be increased to recognise the serious risks to other road users of trying to evade the police or escape detection of more serious offences, such as driving under the influence of drink or drugs. The Government have considered this, and agree that amending the penalty would more accurately reflect the offending behaviour.
	Amendment No. 27 makes minor changes to the offence of "furious driving" under the Offences against the Person Act 1961.

Lord Bradshaw: It was 1861.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am sorry, my Lords; 1861 was the year I was looking for. I am not sure I can go back a century and a half with regard to these issues.
	Existing bad driving offences under the Road Traffic Act 1988 apply to public but not private places, and to motorised vehicles. This means that, at times, instances of bad driving may fall outside the scope of the Act because either the place or the vehicle is not covered. In some circumstances the behaviour will fall outside the Road Traffic Act but be covered by other offences. Manslaughter, for example, may be committed anywhere, as can offences such as assault. Where an example of bad driving is not serious enough to warrant a charge of manslaughter, or where death and injury is caused and the offence takes place on private property or in a non-motorised vehicle, the only offence that may apply is that of furious driving under Section 35 of the 1861 Act, to whose correct date the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, drew my attention.
	This is not strictly a road traffic offence. It is indictable only, and carries a maximum penalty of two years. Also, it applies—I note the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—only to England and Wales.
	It may be helpful if I set out which roads would be covered by the offence of furious driving. Privately-owned roads open to the public to drive on, as may be found in some private developments, are public roads for the purpose of driving offences. What is not covered is truly private property—for example, race tracks. The consultation on bad driving offences argued that this offence should be replaced, as it is outdated. This was generally supported, but some responses emphasised that care should be taken as the offence is still used.
	In addition, the consultation did not demonstrate concern that the present law is lacking. There is no evidence that there are current instances of bad driving that take place on private land or in non-motorised vehicles that are not adequately dealt with. The response from Justice noted that there are several factors that make it difficult to treat driving on public roads and on private property the same; for example, there is no requirement to have a licence to drive on private property, and there is a much lower risk of harm to others. Simply to apply existing driving licences for all vehicles to all types of property would not be justified.
	The Government have therefore concluded that the offence of furious driving should be left in place, but there are a few simple measures that would make it more effective in practice. As such, our Amendment No. 27 will clarify that a court has a discretion to disqualify for the offence. The clause also makes the offence endorsable where it involves a mechanically propelled vehicle. That means that it will not be possible to endorse a licence where the person has been found guilty of furious driving of a horse and cart. I offer that to noble Lords as an indication of how carefully the Government have thought through the amendment.
	Finally, Amendment No. 28 transposes Clause 23 on the offence of keeping a vehicle that does not meet insurance requirements to before Clause 18, so that it will be grouped alongside the two new criminal offences in government Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which we discussed before dinner.
	In light of that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will accept government Amendments Nos. 26 to 28. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am a bit disappointed that furious driving does not apply to Scotland, not only because constitutionally it is wrong as the Road Traffic Acts are reserved to preserve equal treatment across Great Britain, if not to extend it to Northern Ireland. There is the possibility of constitutional anoraks getting upset, but I am attracted by the offence, because it is what I have been looking for to deal with people who drive quad bikes and off-road motorcycles on public footpaths, causing people to have to jump out of the way. I have been struggling to find an offence that those drivers are committing when they are clearly committing a breach of common sense. I am almost about to hear myself ask whether we have to table an amendment to extend the offence to Scotland.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have no difficulty with the Minister's amendments, but I was not aware of furious driving. Have there been any prosecutions or convictions for the offence?

Viscount Simon: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's research, did he know that what we now know as roads were originally described as those accessible to a shepherd, three sheep and a sheepdog?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Simon has taken us slightly further back in history than even 1861. I am sorry about the difficulty of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, with regard to Scotland. There probably was an Earl of Mar and Kellie in this House in 1861, but there certainly was not a Lord Davies of Oldham, so he cannot accuse me of being neglectful on that occasion. We are actually reflecting the use of land in the two countries, with very different legal systems applying to them.
	So far as I know, furious driving is not so much a road traffic offence as one that falls under the criminal law in England and Wales. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, will have to do his research, because it may well fall under the criminal law in Scotland or something similar to it. In that sense the matter is devolved, which is why we are not talking about Scotland in relation to furious driving.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, there is a slight problem, because I do not think that the Scottish Parliament constitutionally has the right to make laws of the type in a road traffic Act.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that I understand. As I indicated, the law has regard not to road traffic, but to other aspects of the criminal law. Therefore, the Scottish Parliament can take decisions in that area and probably already has done so. I confess that I have not come briefed fully on the Scottish position.
	I believe that the same issue obtains with regard to Scotland so I do not think that the noble Earl will have to do too much research to reassure himself on that point.
	On the more general issues, I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says about furious driving being an interesting concept. It is a dated and restricted concept. I do not have information regarding the latest successful prosecution under the measure. I believe that such a prosecution is an extreme rarity but the measure is on the statute book, and that is why I refer to it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 27:
	After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
	"FURIOUS DRIVING
	In Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences otherwise than under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to manslaughter and culpable homicide insert—
	
		
			  
			 "An offence under section 35 of the Offences againstthe Person Act 1861 (furious driving). Discretionary. Obligatory if committed in respect of amechanically propelled vehicle. 3–9"" 
		
	
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Transpose Clause 23 to before Clause 18.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"MEANING OF DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION
	In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), after section 3 insert—
	"3ZA MEANING OF CARELESS, OR INCONSIDERATE, DRIVING
	(1) This section has effect for the purposes of sections 2B and 3 above and section 3A below.
	(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
	(3) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
	(4) A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving.""
	[Amendment No. 29A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 29, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 29 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 30:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"EXTENSION OF OFFENCE IN SECTION 3A OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988
	(1) Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs etc.) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert "or
	(d) he is required by a constable to give his permission for a laboratory test of a specimen of blood taken from him under section 7A of this Act, but without reasonable excuse fails to do so,".
	(3) In subsection (3), for "and (c)" substitute ", (c) and (d)".
	(4) In section 24(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (alternative verdicts), in the Table, in the entry relating to section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), in the second column, after "Section 7(6) (failing to provide specimen)" insert "Section 7A(6) (failing to give permission for laboratory test)"."

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Amendment No. 30 arises from a response to the consultation paper on bad driving offences that highlighted a loophole in the current law.
	At present the law allows the police to request a medical practitioner to take a blood sample from a suspect who is not capable of consenting—for example, because he is unconscious—but does not allow it to be tested unless the suspect subsequently consents. Where that consent is then withheld, there is an offence of failure to consent to a blood test under Section 7A(6) of the Road Traffic Act which has a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment, but there is no provision that would allow the suspect to be prosecuted for causing death while under the influence. This is not the case in relation to a person who is capable of consenting and withholds their consent.
	Causing death while under the influence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment so it is important that we do not allow those who do not consent, and have no reasonable excuse, in effect to opt for prosecution of a much less serious offence with a significantly lower penalty. This amendment brings the law into line so that whether or not a person is conscious or unconscious following an incident does not determine which offence he could ultimately be charged with.
	I hope noble Lords will agree that this is an important amendment aimed at ensuring that the law is adequate and fair, and that it closes a loophole. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, if the person concerned is unconscious, how can he be expected to give his consent?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will accept the amendment, but why is it necessary to obtain consent to analyse a sample? I can understand why it is necessary to obtain consent to take a sample, because otherwise that would constitute an assault, but why is it necessary to obtain consent to analyse a sample?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is necessary to obtain consent because the sample has been taken without the conscious agreement of the person concerned. Before any further progress can be made with the sample, consent has to be given. We all recognise that consent would be withheld where the person is in no position to exercise any response. However, we are concerned that delayed consent can lead to a different and lower order offence. We are trying to rationalise that process. That is why the amendment is necessary.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if there is delay in obtaining the consent, is there a risk that the sample could become reduced or contaminated, and that could be used as an artificial defence, in which case I strongly support not having a delay?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is undoubtedly a danger in the very long run, but we are thinking within a framework of a normal period, in which samples can be protected. I have no note of anxiety on that score; it is covered. It is clear that the loophole has produced injustice.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, is the Minister absolutely clear in his own mind on this? If someone has come into police custody presumably the worse for drink or drugs, and is unconscious, and a sample is taken from him without his consent—because he is not in a position to give it—is the Minister telling us that the sample has got to be kept in the custody of the police and not analysed until the person is able to give consent? The noble Baroness has just made the point that the blood sample could deteriorate considerably if, for example, it was held over a weekend. Can the Minister assure us that the blood sample would in fact be good enough to show whatever drugs or drink they are analysing it for? I am probing the Minister on why it is necessary, having taken the sample, then to get the permission of the person who is unconscious before you analyse it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have dug a pit into which I have successfully fallen. I put the emphasis in the wrong place, and I apologise to the House for that. The consent formally in law is to the analysis and not to the taking of the sample. That would be delayed if a person were unconscious. I recognise the legitimate anxiety about how long the samples would last. They do not deteriorate in the short term, but if someone was in a coma for many months, the problem might arise. However, I imagine in such circumstances the procedures of the law would have considerable difficulty anyway. We have no anxiety about the deterioration of samples in the short term.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 31:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"ALTERNATIVE VERDICT ON UNSUCCESSFUL CULPABLE HOMICIDE PROSECUTION
	(1) Section 23 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (alternative verdicts in Scotland) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for "an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (dangerous driving)" substitute "any of the relevant offences".
	(3) After that subsection insert—
	"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1) above the following are the relevant offences—
	(a) an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving),
	(b) an offence under section 2 of that Act (dangerous driving), and
	(c) an offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs).""

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32, which both deal with provision for alternative verdicts for the offences of culpable homicide in Scotland and manslaughter in England and Wales. In a small number of cases, rather than being charged with causing death by dangerous driving, a defendant will be charged with manslaughter, or in Scotland with culpable homicide. That can occur where the driving entailed a very high risk of death. It is rarely used, but is nevertheless important to reflect the fact that some offenders use cars just as they would use any other weapon. Some people use the term "motor manslaughter".
	Doubt has arisen whether in England and Wales a prosecution for manslaughter could give rise to an alternative verdict of causing death by dangerous driving where the manslaughter charge fails. The consultation on bad driving offences proposed that the situation be clarified so that it is clear that alternative verdicts are available to ensure that prosecutors are not dissuaded from prosecuting on a manslaughter charge where that is considered appropriate. No doubt to the joy of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the situation is slightly different in Scotland. Section 23(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988—which I shall refer to as the RTOA—provides that in Scotland an alternative verdict under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act on dangerous driving is already available where an accused has been found not guilty of culpable homicide. Amendment No. 32 provides that the offences of causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink and drugs, and furious driving will be available as alternative verdicts where a prosecution for manslaughter has been unsuccessful.
	Furious driving, under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 has been added into Amendment No. 32, as this is the only offence that would be available if a prosecution for manslaughter for driving that took place on private property had failed.
	Amendment No. 31 ensures that the same offences, with the exception of furious driving, which is an offence only in England and Wales, as I sought to explain in our previous discussion, will be available as alternative verdicts in Scotland. This will ensure that prosecutors feel able to pursue rigorously these charges where appropriate and ensure that the same alternative verdicts will apply regardless of where an incident occurs. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, can the Minister clarify this matter? If someone is prosecuted for manslaughter while driving a mechanically-propelled vehicle, and they are tried and found not guilty, is the prosecutor able to say that that not guilty verdict means that they must put before the court the possibility that the defendant is guilty of any one of the other three offences? If that happens, does the prosecutor have to allow time for the defence to take second instructions? Does he have to allow time for an adjournment? Does the defendant have to go through a retrial on the back of much of the previous evidence?
	That may happen in other court proceedings, but I am not aware of it. Normally, if you are found not guilty at the end of a trial, that is that and you are not allowed to be prosecuted again for that offence. If you are then prosecuted for another offence, do the proceedings have to start all over again, with the person being re-arrested and the matter put before the court? Before we agree to the amendment, we need an explanation to clarify the matter.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am interested in my noble friend's point about double jeopardy, because we have heard that that now applies in ordinary manslaughter or murder cases. We have heard reports in the press about someone's car being stolen and the driver deliberately running over the owner of the car. I do not know whether that person survived, but it certainly was a deliberate attempt to injure or kill. It would be desirable to have the option of a number of charges, but, like my noble friend, I would like to know whether the court can determine the outcome as an "either/or" case, or whether double jeopardy applies and the defendant could face a double trial.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, can the indictment start in Scotland as culpable homicide and then be followed by a second charge of causing death by dangerous driving? Will those charges all be listed, one below the other, or can they be returned to? Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that anyone who deliberately drives into someone is guilty of murder.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, however I put it, all I am doing is questioning the process. I am not questioning whether someone who knocks down and kills someone is guilty of an offence. Of course they are. The question is whether, if they are found not guilty of one offence, they can then be prosecuted for another offence.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I would have been surprised if she had remained silent while harbouring such anxieties about the way that this legislation will work, if the amendments receive the approval of the House.
	We are not talking about double jeopardy or a retrial; we are saying that when the prosecution presents the charge of the more serious offence, it will encompass within that all the issues which might relate to the more minor offence. It will be for the judge to say that he did not find the first position established and he might direct the court to consider the second. That is how it would work. It would be the same trial—it would not be double jeopardy. You would be before the court with the more serious charge being outlined, and you might find that eventually, on the evidence, you were convicted on the lesser part of the offence. That is the basis on which it would work. I hope that that allays noble Lords' well founded anxieties.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 32:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"ALTERNATIVE VERDICT ON UNSUCCESSFUL MANSLAUGHTER PROSECUTION
	In section 24 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (alternative verdicts), before subsection (1) insert—
	"(A1) Where—
	(a) a person charged with manslaughter in connection with the driving of a mechanically propelled vehicle by him is found not guilty of that offence, but
	(b) the allegations in the indictment amount to or include an allegation of any of the relevant offences,
	he may be convicted of that offence.
	(A2) For the purposes of subsection (A1) above the following are the relevant offences—
	(a) an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving),
	(b) an offence under section 2 of that Act (dangerous driving),
	(c) an offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs), and
	(d) an offence under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (furious driving).""
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [New Schedule 2A to the Road Traffic Act 1988]:

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 90, line 18, after "court" insert "or (in Scotland) to the sheriff".

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 deals with disputes and currently makes provision for regulations allowing for an application only to a magistrates' court. This is a drafting error as the Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland. In Scotland, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was going to point out to me, the equivalent of a magistrates' court is a sheriff court. Consequently, the paragraph should in fact provide for applications in Scotland to be made to a sheriff court. The amendment rectifies that error by providing that the paragraph includes provision for applications in Scotland to be made to a sheriff court. I apologise to the House and, in particular, to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for the error. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 26 [Driving tests]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 34:
	Page 39, line 4, at end insert—
	"( ) In subsection (1) (tests of competence to drive), after the word "requirement" insert ", has received first aid training".
	( ) In paragraph (a) insert at end—
	"(aa) an applicant shall be considered to have received first aid training if on the date the application for the licence is made he has received the training prescribed by virtue of subsection (3) below.""

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we had a very useful debate in Committee about the importance of basic first aid skills in saving lives on our roads. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 as I undertook to return to this significant issue at Report stage. I shall not rehearse in detail the many benefits of first aid skills for drivers as we heard them in previous sittings. However, I think it is necessary to restate the potential of enhancing first aid knowledge.
	Noble Lords will know that we still have an average of eight deaths each day on UK roads. Some of those deaths are inevitable after an accident has occurred due to the massive injuries sustained. However, substantial research has shown that in the cases where death was not inevitable, up to 85 per cent of the casualties had an airway obstruction. With a blocked airway, it can take less than four minutes to die. In those cases, even if an ambulance arrives within the target time of eight minutes, it is those at the scene who can save a life.
	In Committee, we were very glad to hear from the Minister that he was working with the British Red Cross—many of us have also been involved in discussions with the Red Cross—and St John Ambulance on practical solutions to increase these basic skills in new drivers. I take the Government's point about the complexities of requiring all new drivers to take a practical first aid course in order to pass a driving test. However, other European countries, such as Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia, do require such training.
	I was also pleased to hear in Committee that the Government think that there is a way forward in amending the theory section of the driving test. My understanding is that both parts of the theory test can be amended to enhance new drivers' first aid knowledge. The Minister referred to the question and answer section of the theory test and to the fact that there are currently 22 first aid questions out of 1,200 in total. I should very much like the Government to commit to raising that number so that each new driver is certain to be asked questions about first aid. I should like the Minister to comment on that today.
	In addition, I understand that the interactive part of the theory test—the hazard perception test—could include one scene detailing a first aid scenario. That would enable a learner driver to understand the basis of responding to a road accident: ensuring that the scene is safe; checking consciousness, breathing and circulation; and calling for help.
	The new focus on the theory test would remedy previous objections on the grounds of bureaucracy and cost. It would not require a separate course on first aid, and would be integrated into the current system. Nor would improving the theory test require retesting every few years; it would simply give new drivers vital life skills at a time when they need them most. As your Lordships have heard several times, drivers between 17 and 20 are six times more likely to be involved in a collision that causes injury than a driver over 40.
	These modest steps would not place any obligation on drivers. No driver would be required to act at the scene of an accident. What a dreadful tragedy it would be, however, if there were a willing bystander who could have unblocked an airway or prevented blood loss, but was unable to save a life through a lack of those very simple skills.
	I hope that the Minister can respond to these amendments and outline the Government's intentions on improving the first aid content of the theory element of the driving test. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said. I remember quite clearly what the Minister said in Committee: he was keen to avoid extra bureaucracy and mentioned the large cost of extra testing. It does not appear to me, from the researches that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has outlined, that it would be very difficult to incorporate some simple first aid questions within the theory part of the test, and include some simulator-type element where somebody could experience what it is like.
	The messages to get over appear to be very simple. We are not expecting people to become paramedics. We expect them to think about a few simple things. It would be in the interests of all people who use the roads if the Minister could accede to this amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support this amendment. I was really opposed to the idea of any sort of extensive training, which I thought would be quite impossible and impractical. I am impressed by the leaflet sent by the Red Cross, however, and putting it into the hazard perception test would be very good. I will mention again the comment of my noble friend Lord Hanningfield—about new drivers, particularly between the ages of 17 and 20, being the most likely to be involved in a collision—when we get to Amendment No. 37.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes in support of this amendment, the hazard perception test is an ideal vehicle. It is already there. This is just the kind of component that it should include.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. I am grateful for the letter that we had from the Minister, and agree with many of the points he raises in it—particularly the load on youngsters at that time, the skill fade on a large first aid test and the need for examiners to be examiners in driving, not in first aid. My amendment, which I described in detail in Committee, was a very short practical test with a dummy. I suspect it would only last 60 seconds and one would really have to be incredibly thick to fail it. That would be good, because the candidate would feel good for having passed the test. It would only demonstrate an ability to procure an airway, immobilise the neck and detect and control bleeding, and nothing else. It would therefore be a very short test. One would have to be some sort of moron not to pass it.
	If the Minister cannot accept our amendments—which I suspect he cannot—will he at least ensure that there will always be at least one first aid test in the theory test? That way, if a candidate does not study any first aid, he will fail one of the questions.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, accurately prophesied, I cannot accept the amendments. But I accept very much the spirit in which they are moved, and who could gainsay the enormous advantages to the road-travelling public, in fact to all of us, if we increase first-aid skills? That is why we were only too happy to meet with representatives of the Red Cross, St John Ambulance and others in the summer to discuss these issues. We want to see an improvement in first-aid skills. As all noble Lords have testified, this can be of enormous advantage in certain circumstances. Our problem is quite straightforward: we are opposed to the idea that passing the driving test, which is a test of being able to drive a vehicle, should be dependent on a supplementary test or concept regarding first aid.
	I want to give the assurance straight away that of course we will look at the issues of strengthening the driving test questions on first aid. We already have provision with regard to that. It is not the case that you can pass the driving test and show complete ignorance of first aid. We will look to ways, which we discussed with the Red Cross, of strengthening the driving test in these terms. But we are still reluctant to accept the argument that the test of the ability to drive should potentially be passed or failed by an additional test on competence regarding first aid.
	I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said on how limited that test might be. Even so, as I attested when we discussed the issue in Committee, there are some who might find that test difficult, or even inimical, to take. There is a problem there.
	I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, gave her whole-hearted support to the concept on this occasion. Last time she introduced a concept for which I was grateful and which I shall reiterate—not to embarrass her in any way, shape or form, but to show that we take her representations seriously, as indeed we should. Her point was that people who blithely address themselves to first aid and get it wrong could find themselves liable if it were subsequently shown that they had significantly contributed to the degree of action the person suffered. So, we are worried about that aspect. I give way to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, of course.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, is there any evidence that this problem has actually arisen?

Lord Davies of Oldham: No, my Lords. I do not have anything in front of me. I know of another incident, and I can only talk anecdotally in this. I do not know of an incident with regard to cars, but I know of a football injury where the person concerned demonstrated extremely inexpert skills in putting that injury right. He got it badly wrong and was sued. He acted out of goodwill, but he did not know what he was doing and made the injury a jolly sight worse than it had been when it first occurred. I am saying that if we introduce this as a requirement of the test, we certainly would have many more people feeling that they were competent to act in these terms and we would not be assured that their competence would stand the test.
	Let me make the obvious point, and we discussed this with the Red Cross, some of us hold driving licences from a long way back, do we not? I do not think that the Red Cross would be very satisfied if I said to them that when I passed my test in 1961 I also passed the equivalent first-aid requirement at that time and therefore I feel myself to be entirely competent today. It would say that I was out of date after three years, not after 44 or whatever it is. There is a real problem about the question of effective first aid in these terms. I hear what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says about how limited the subject might be. That is not actually the nature of the representations we had from the bodies concerned. I give way, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, the Minister said at the beginning of his reply that he was with us in spirit and went on to say that he was giving the matter some thought. We might achieve the inclusion of some further points in the oral part of the test. We have all had discussions with the Red Cross, which felt that it had persuaded the Government to extend that element of the test. I am disappointed to hear the Minister say that the Government will give some thought to that. Can he not be more categorical and say that there could be more first aid questions in the oral part of the test? That hurts no one and at least gives people a bit more basic knowledge. As I said, that would not increase bureaucracy or need a lot of first aid people to administer the test; it would just ensure that young people taking that first test had a little more first aid knowledge as he and I had all those years ago when we took our tests.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Yes, my Lords, although I am not sure that the noble Lord has applied himself to the test that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, referred to, which is now part of the driving test. I have taken the additional test recently and I hope that he will join me in that competence.
	I can be more positive, because we discussed those issues with the Red Cross. We thought that its case had been made and that we would need to extend questions in the theory part of the driving test to include more on first aid. We have not reached final conclusions on that because this is no straightforward matter. The driving test is a pretty serious examination, as noble Lords will know. One of the blessings of having passed the test some years ago is that we are not subject to quite the same challenge as is presented to newly qualifying drivers today, although we are working on that to ensure that we are all up to competence. But that will have to wait for another day, not the Bill.
	Let me make the obvious point that we accept what the noble Lord says. We are considering extending the test to include additional first aid material.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, especially for the last part of it. Many of us think that this is an important part of the Bill. There are areas that we are discussing now that could save a substantial number of lives. Earlier, we talked about reflective strips and this area, where a lot of people die in the early stages after a road accident who might be saved if something could be done. So we are discussing saving lives.
	As I said, I was pleased to hear what the Minister said right at the end: that the Government were considering that. We all have to reflect on that and talk to others to decide whether we return to it on Third Reading but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: moved Amendment No. 37:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
	"IDENTIFICATION OF VEHICLES DRIVEN BY NEW DRIVERS: PILOT SCHEME
	(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a pilot scheme for identifying new drivers by means of a distinguishing mark on vehicles driven by them.
	(2) The scheme shall apply to all drivers passing the driving test within a specified period of not less than 3 months' duration.
	(3) Drivers who pass the test during that specified period shall be required for a period of one year to drive only in vehicles carrying a distinguishing mark of such size, nature, position and colour as may be prescribed in the order.
	(4) Following the pilot scheme, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to Parliament on the effect of the scheme on accident rates and the incidence of road traffic offences among the target group, when compared to control groups who passed the driving test in the period of 3 months immediately before and immediately after the pilot period."

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have gone to a lot of trouble, although I cannot claim credit for the clever wording of the amendment. It is specifically designed to meet all the objections that the Minister raised to my earlier, much more simple amendment in which I specified the type of plate, the number, the period of time, and so on. So this is an enabling amendment. The Minister has said that the trouble is that we always believe that young people aged 17 to 20 have many more accidents—sure enough, the Red Cross confirms that in its statement. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield said that they are six times more likely to have an accident; the Red Cross did not say that in my brief, but I accept that figure.
	First, the amendment states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order"—
	so it does not oblige him to do this, but it includes it as a possibility, which is extremely valuable because we have been trying for years to get such a provision—I certainly tried during the passage of the previous two relevant Acts.
	The amendment continues,
	"identifying new drivers by means of a distinguishing mark".
	Again, I have left it to the Government to decide whether they want "R" plates, "L" plates, a happy face or a frog as an identifying mark; it is entirely up to them.
	Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause says:
	"The scheme shall apply to all drivers passing the driving test within a specified period of not less than 3 months' duration".
	It was important to include something of that type because if you applied the scheme only at certain testing stations, everyone might move to the next testing station to avoid it. If the scheme lasted less than three months, people might say, "I'll hang on until that horrible little test is over before I take my test, so I won't be one of those that will be assessed". It is important that new drivers should drive only in vehicles carrying a distinguishing mark for a specified period but I am flexible on whether it is one year, three months or six months. The Minister could decide that. The amendment even refers to,
	"size, nature, position and colour as may be prescribed in the order".
	It is very important that, under proposed new subsection (4), following the pilot scheme there should be a report. The whole purpose of the idea is to answer the Minister's statement that we do not know whether such a scheme would help. I agree that we do not know, but for some reason the Department for Transport tends to chicken out and be unwilling to do something that would enable it to see whether it works and whether the situation of young people is different.
	The amendment gives the Minister all sorts of opportunities to do things without forcing him to do them. I am prepared at Third Reading to table an amendment—or ask him to do so, if he prefers—that suits him better. He may not like some of my words, but we have gone to great trouble to table an amendment that is practical and enabling but still leaves great flexibility with the Department for Transport. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment entirely. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we must acquire proper evidence of what works well and achieves best practice in road safety. For certain aspects of road safety, employment of pilot projects is undoubtedly the way forward. Thereafter, as my noble friend Lady Gardner, has explained, we can extend to the United Kingdom expedients that have proved efficient. That is particularly desirable in the case of her amendment as it advocates pilot projects to address the main anomaly that we face: new and young drivers, including 17 to 21 year-olds, who account for roughly 10 per cent of driving licences but are involved in about 20 per cent of crashes.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as I think I said in Committee, this type of programme is already available in Northern Ireland; therefore we have evidence of whether it works. In some respects, one might even say that this is an attempt to extend the scheme to the British mainland, which is maybe not a bad thing. From a constitutional point of view, is it not a breach of human rights that young people in Northern Ireland, but not those on the British mainland, are subjected to such a scheme? Is that allowed?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps young people would be happier to have such a scheme. It is a long time since I took the driving test but I remember vaguely that awful feeling of setting forth without anyone having the faintest idea that you were driving for the first time by yourself and therefore taking some notice of you. It might be worth testing in a pilot whether young people felt more secure in having a mark that, to some extent, is a warning sign saying, "Just be careful of me. I am quite new here and I might do something wrong".
	There seems to be a lot of benefit in what is being put forward. I did not know that this happened in Northern Ireland, but it might be possible to find out from young people there—or anyone who passes the test because they do not all have to be young—whether it gives them a feeling of security.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment. I can see the benefits of what she seeks to do. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that although it is done in Northern Ireland, we do not know the result. The problem in Northern Ireland is that there is not a control and there is a different accident rate from the rest of the UK. Perhaps a small trial with a control, which of course would be the rest of the population, would be beneficial.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I am somewhat surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, did not mention Australia. I happened to be working in Australia when putting an identifying mark, which happened to be a "P", on the back of a car was introduced. It was very efficient, worked well and still is working well. I thoroughly support what the noble Baroness is trying to do. It is very good. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, might like to know that I have spoken to a few drivers with an identifying mark on the back of their vehicles. They say that it has given them some confidence in that the majority of drivers, but certainly not all, keep out of their way and give them due care and attention.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend's amendment. There is a case for a pilot scheme. As we have said several times, we need to ensure that there is extra provision to enable young people to learn to use the roads properly, because that is where most accidents and deaths occur.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the mover of the amendment. Having discussed these issues at some length last time, I see the attraction of a possible pilot scheme. I want to attest to the House that I shall be negative about it in my final conclusion. But I want to make clear that we are concerned about newly qualified drivers, which is why we have, in parts of our legislation, stiffened up the penalties for newly qualified drivers who offend. There is no doubt that there are anxieties.
	In any system the most newly qualified will be more vulnerable to getting things wrong because experience is a great teacher. We would all attest to that—it makes us the kind of perfect persons that we are. When discussing legislation of this kind, we all know the benefits of many years learning the skills of driving and so forth. By definition, newly qualified drivers, through their lack of experience, are more prone to accidents. Certainly, we need to address this as a particular issue.
	The problem is that we do not think that a pilot scheme will tell us a great deal that we do not know already. We know already, for instance, that the restricted scheme for drivers in Northern Ireland with regard to the restricted plates seems to make very little difference to road accident statistics. We do not regard the Northern Ireland experience, which is by far the closest to home for obvious reasons, as helping us in any way. On the more technical points, I will write to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I need to talk to lawyers about that factor, so I cannot answer him immediately.
	In 2004 we carried out a full consultation on this issue because we were very conscious of the public anxiety surrounding it. Our own statistics indicated clearly the difficulties associated with newly qualified drivers. But we concluded at the end of the consultation that we would not gain from imposing more extensive restrictions on newly qualified drivers. Our task was to ensure that they are better qualified by improving the driving test so that they would have to meet more rigorous standards. I should say that that is also the answer to the point about the restrictions that are imposed abroad. I take the point about what is done in certain American states, in Australia and various other places. However, first, many of those areas allow people to drive from a much younger age than in this country. Secondly, their tests do not approach ours in terms of rigour. So it is not surprising that additional restrictions are placed on new drivers because people are being put on to the road who we would not regard as qualified to drive. Our emphasis is on the quality of our driving test, both the theory and the practical elements of it.
	We have carried out some statistical research on newly qualified drivers. The rate at which such drivers break the law compares reasonably well with the rest of the population. Under 4.4 per cent of newly qualified male drivers received fixed penalty notices or summonses for motoring offences, while the figure for females was just below 1.6 per cent. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that every 17 year-old who gets into a car is a madcap driver hell bent on proving his machismo qualities and thus causing accidents. However, accidents caused by young drivers are dramatic and reported widely in the press, not least because they shock us so. Nothing is more chilling. I recall only too well an accident in my former constituency involving four youngsters aged 17 and below, including the driver, who was only 17. The car hit a moorland wall and all four were killed. The sense of shock in the community reverberated for months afterwards because it was such a colossal waste of life. We are all conscious of the cases when things do go wrong, but the statistics do not bear out any notion that we have an outbreak of lawless brigandry when learner drivers qualify.
	I have already mentioned that we bite more heavily on newly qualified drivers who get it wrong. If they make a mistake within two years of passing the driving test and accrue six or more penalty points, they can be disqualified. That is half the points that may be accrued by more mature drivers.
	I am not complacent about this issue and I welcome these debates. They force us to consider carefully the basis of the consultation we carried out some 18 months ago and the conclusions we drew from it. Indeed, a great deal of detailed research on this issue is now in progress. We accept that learners and newly qualified drivers need to gain experience and we know that a minority of them deserve to lose their licences because they have not conducted themselves well enough immediately after qualification, and lose their licences they do.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, we do not think that the objectives of this cause would be advanced by a pilot study. I hope that she will accept my response and feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, that response sounds delightfully plausible. The Minister has quoted some statistics, but whenever I have raised this subject in the past, he has said: "That's the trouble. There are no statistics". That is why I propose the pilot. Unless we collect some actual, real statistics, we do not know what we are talking about.
	The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland certainly has always supported this proposal. There is probably a new man in the post now but I am sure he would equally support it.
	The Minister has said to me in the past that the Australian figures are worse than ours. That may be so, but how do we know they would not be worse still without the use of these driving plates? This is the whole point. We are proposing a controlled experiment whereby an identified group driving on this basis is compared with a group that had, for example, gone through in the previous three months. You would have a controlled experiment. The Minister said, "We do not think all these young people are breaking the law". I am not suggesting they are, but the Red Cross must have obtained these facts and figures from somewhere. As I said, my brief refers to "many times" but my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said that 17 to 20 year-olds are six times more likely to be involved in an accident. Someone is producing these figures from somewhere.
	I am going to hound the Minister between now and the next stage of the Bill because I do not think it should be up to me to bring this matter forward. I have been fortunate to have someone very clever to help me work out the wording of the amendment. But, in the past, if I have had a good idea in an amendment, the Government of whatever colour have taken it away, perhaps altered a capital letter or whatever, and brought it back as a government amendment. It always has to come back as a government amendment and I would be very happy to have it as a government amendment. That is what I shall be talking to the Minister about between now and the next stage of the Bill.
	The amendment does not demand that the Minister should introduce the scheme but it enables him to do so. The power to order a pilot scheme would be on the face of the Bill and would enable the Minister to introduce it at whatever time he decided that that should be done. It is an indisputably good system. It is late at night and I do not have other noble Lords here, but I will be coming back to the issue at Third Reading unless I can persuade the Minister to bring something forward himself. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.